- From: John Foliot <jfoliot@stanford.edu>
- Date: Tue, 7 Jul 2009 19:19:15 -0700 (PDT)
- To: "'Sam Ruby'" <rubys@intertwingly.net>, "'Ian Hickson'" <ian@hixie.ch>
- Cc: "'Shelley Powers'" <shelley.just@gmail.com>, "'HTML WG'" <public-html@w3.org>
Sam Ruby wrote: > If in fall of 2009 we have two draft specifications, one that is > acknowledged as technically superior but seen as one that few will > follow, and one that is technically inferior that describes > interoperable behavior and is widely viewed as one that people will > follow, my (one) vote will be that latter spec be the one that proceeds > to Last Call. At the risk of this sounding like "me-too-ism", I echo Sams's point - it was in fact the idea I was fishing around for when I asked about the real value of "conformance" a few weeks back. I too will choose superior usability for my constituents over technical purity any time, which means that I would use attributes such as @summary as I see best used, regardless of technical conformance: WCAG 2 has more sway over me than validator.nu (with no offense to the excellent work done by Henri). In a perfect world (for me) however, the two would interact seamlessly, and support each other. While I remain hopeful for such, there are numerous times when I worry that it is an utopian dream. JF
Received on Wednesday, 8 July 2009 02:19:56 UTC