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

Re: Fwd: Draft of @summary text for HTML 5 poll

From: Shelley Powers <shelley.just@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 2009 17:59:11 -0500
Message-ID: <643cc0270907231559i4c18e6eo3ab56d84f40f011b@mail.gmail.com>
To: Lachlan Hunt <lachlan.hunt@lachy.id.au>
Cc: public-html@w3.org
On Thu, Jul 23, 2009 at 5:21 PM, Lachlan Hunt<lachlan.hunt@lachy.id.au> wrote:
> Joshue O Connor wrote:
>>
>> @summary draft text for HTML poll.
>>
>> Overview
>>
>> HTML 5 needs a mechanism to provide a data table with a summary. An
>> explicitly associated, programmatic feature is required in order to
>> provide an overview of tabular data or a brief explanation of how to
>> navigate a data table for people who use Assistive Technology (AT)...
>
> [snip - remainder of draft]
>
> The content of that read more like a position statment than a any kind of
> poll.  It seemed to focus a great deal on the claimed benefits of @summary
> and the reasons it should be conforming, with no mention of any of the
> counter claims or rebuttals.  Having such a position statement is certainly
> useful, and it would be useful if we also had a similar position
> statement(s) outlining the opposing viewpoints.  But I don't think such a
> thing is suitable for the questionnaire itself, which I thought was intended
> to determine the level of support for the various options to deal with
> @summary.
>
> --
> Lachlan Hunt - Opera Software
> http://lachy.id.au/
> http://www.opera.com/
>
>

I don't think that an opposing viewpoint needs to be specified. The
options are two: do we keep the text about the summary attribute, as
is, in the document, or do we replace it with...

The "replace it with" is the snapshot text Sam has asked for, and
still needs to be derived. No offense to Josh, but what he provided
isn't really concrete text on which one can votes, and then follow
through on a specific action. Laura and Maciej also noted this.

Regardless, the question is really about keeping the existing text, or
replacing it. Above and beyond that, there could be arguments for or
against voting for one option or the other. However, such should be
given in separate emails, and within a constrained time period.

Those that support leaving summary in the document, as is, could then
present their arguments. Those who support replacing the text with the
newly provided substitute, could then provide their arguments.

But the actual voting text should be kept simple: keep what we have,
or replace it with *recommended replacement text*. If we get more
complicated, then we're not sure what we're voting on.

Now, to address what both Josh and Laura mentioned, replacing the text
in the spec with new summary text, if that's how the whole thing goes,
doesn't mean that folks may not come up with better solutions later,
or in a different version of HTML, or even in part of a separate
specification. It just means, replace the existing summary text. End
of story, discussion done, moving on.

Does what I just wrote make any sense to folks?

Shelley
Received on Thursday, 23 July 2009 22:59:51 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Thursday, 29 October 2015 10:15:48 UTC