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

RE: Publishing a new draft (HTML5+RDFa)

From: John Foliot <jfoliot@stanford.edu>
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 2009 17:53:17 -0700 (PDT)
To: "'Sam Ruby'" <rubys@intertwingly.net>, "'Leif Halvard Silli'" <lhs@malform.no>
Cc: "'Ben Adida'" <ben@adida.net>, "'Manu Sporny'" <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>, "'HTML WG'" <public-html@w3.org>, "'RDFa mailing list'" <public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf@w3.org>
Message-ID: <01b101ca1179$44e47ba0$cead72e0$@edu>
Sam Ruby wrote:
> Meanwhile, the Working Group is within its rights to decline to approve
> the publication of a working draft that contains micro-data, or to
> insist that RDFa be included or that micro-data (or the recent change
> to summary) be explicitly marked.
> However, absolutely nobody has step forwarded and requested that any of
> these be done.


On July 26th, I asked the editor:

"Meanwhile, I respectfully request that you not impose your personal
opinion on @summary and restore it to a valid and current HTML attribute -
retaining its existing, current status as seen in both HTML4 and XHTML1"

This would be in keeping with the request and guidance that was formally
submitted to the HTML WG by the PFWG on June 3, 2009 [2]

(I won't spend too much time on Ian's rather dismissive response to either

And so,

*IF* my request to return @summary to a valid conforming (non-obsolete)
attribute - complete with the removal of accessibility guidance that tells
authors not to use @summary (which is currently in direct contradiction
with WCAG 2 Guidance [3][4]) - until such time as this issue is properly
resolve, via an open and transparent process (even if that means going to
a vote), then I will remove my objection in the interest of forward
movement.  I have no objection to the draft specification offering other
means of providing similar functionality, however I would suggest that in
the interest of accessibility that the editor is not the proper person to
provide opinionated guidance on which method is "best" - accessibility is
the W3C chartered domain of WAI and the PFWG.

You say that nobody has stepped forward?  I just did.


[1 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2009Jul/0775.html ]
[2 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-archive/2009Jun/0026.html ]
[3 http://www.w3.org/TR/2008/NOTE-WCAG20-TECHS-20081211/H73 ]
ture-separation-programmatic.html ]
Received on Friday, 31 July 2009 00:54:03 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Saturday, 9 October 2021 18:44:51 UTC