Re: summary attribute compromise proposal

Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
> 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: 
> <>. 

And in diff format:

> 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.

I believe that Maciej is talk long term live with.

For the moment, I'm focused on a more near term objective: is this 
something good enough for now.  So, if you agree with Maciej that this 
is good enough for the long term clearly you are OK with it for now.  If 
you aren't sure, but feel that it addresses the immediate objection; 
that;s fine too for my purposes.

If you feel otherwise, please speak up.  I'd like to give people until 
Sunday night to do so, otherwise I will assume that this is the basis 
for the draft that we are going with.

> Regards,
> Maciej

- Sam Ruby

Received on Thursday, 6 August 2009 00:01:39 UTC