- From: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
- Date: Wed, 08 Jul 2009 16:41:56 -0700
- To: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
- Cc: "public-html@w3.org" <public-html@w3.org>, "wai-xtech@w3.org" <wai-xtech@w3.org>
On Jul 8, 2009, at 3:39 PM, Ian Hickson wrote: > On Wed, 8 Jul 2009, Maciej Stachowiak wrote: >> >> For many of the other obsolete features, the basic position is that >> they >> should not be used in new documents, but it may not be worth >> expending >> effort to purge them from old documents. So just labeling them >> obsolete >> gives enough guidance to authors and conformance checkers. But >> summary="" is not quite like that. > > In what sense is it different? I thought it was exactly like that; > that's > why I edited the spec as I did. I think the differences are: - There may be valid reasons to use summary="" other than inertia of an existing document base. - The reason it's obsolete is less obvious. For some of the other obsolete but conforming features, the reason is fairly obvious from the given alternative. But the reason summary="" is problematic is nowhere to be found in the spec. For these reasons, I think it is helpful to explain the problems with summary="", more so than for the other attributes. I think the explanation could be either in the section on explanatory information for tables, or in the obsolete features section, but either way I think it is helpful to provide it. That being said, I don't really want to micromanage the exact spec text. I'm just explaining why I think further explanatory material in the spec text is merited. Regards, Maciej
Received on Wednesday, 8 July 2009 23:42:40 UTC