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

RE: ACTION-128: Draft @summary voting text in conjunction with PF

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>
Message-ID: <039501c9ff72$7c111a20$74334e60$@edu>
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.

Received on Wednesday, 8 July 2009 02:19:56 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Thursday, 29 October 2015 10:15:47 UTC