W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > August 2009

Re: Consolidated issues that may qualify as "controversial"

From: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 2009 05:24:32 -0700
Message-ID: <63df84f0908120524j42617236l6571ce0d4b4c0977@mail.gmail.com>
To: Leif Halvard Silli <lhs@malform.no>
Cc: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>, Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@iki.fi>, HTMLWG WG <public-html@w3.org>
On Wed, Aug 12, 2009 at 4:32 AM, Leif Halvard Silli<lhs@malform.no> wrote:
> It is good that ARIA isn't controversial and may replace @longdesc.
> But it seems logical to treat @longdesc exactly the same way as @summary.
> Thus if @summary isn't closed, @longdesc shouldn't be closed either.
> For instance, @summary and @longdesc should have the same level of
> deprecation/non-deprecation/obsolete-ness. There is no logical
> reason to have it otherwise.

I'm not sure how this relates to Maciejs email? All it says is that he
believes ISSUE-30 is a controversial issue (along with a list of other
issues, including ISSUE-32).

> As Murray said [1]:
>> 2) I don't see how you reach this conclusion. @summary will
>> complete its useful life after ARIA is fully supported,
>> deployed and employed. There is no need to push it onto an ice
>> flow just yet. We can afford to wait until its replacement is
>> actually in place.
> Hence I suggest not closing ISSUE-30 at this moment.

I don't think anyone has suggested otherwise yet?

/ Jonas
Received on Wednesday, 12 August 2009 12:25:32 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Saturday, 9 October 2021 18:44:53 UTC