Re: summary attribute compromise proposal

On Aug 5, 2009, at 4:16 PM, Ian Hickson wrote:

> On Wed, 5 Aug 2009, Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
>> Thus, I hope you will reconsider.
> I've updated the spec to do what you proposed.

Thanks. I read over your changes, and as far as I'm concerned, the new  
spec text is in line with my compromise proposal.

For anyone who would like to check, here's how summary is now defined  
in the <table> section: < 
 > And the only remaining mention in the "conforming but obsolete  
features" section is a brief note indicating that the summary  
attribute gives a warning: < 

I think this is the best arrangement we can get in terms of a  
compromise that both sides can live with. I understand people have  
concerns with various aspects. But I personally do not think I can  
push the proposal much in either direction without completely losing  
the support of one side or the other. So I strongly urge everyone to  
take time and consider whether this is something they can live with.  
If anyone wants to ask for more concessions, then I don't think I  
could lend my support such an effort.


Received on Wednesday, 5 August 2009 23:25:47 UTC