- From: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>
- Date: Fri, 5 Jun 2009 16:31:04 -0700
- To: David Singer <singer@apple.com>
- Cc: public-html@w3.org
On Fri, Jun 5, 2009 at 3:14 PM, David Singer <singer@apple.com> wrote: > At 12:22 -0700 5/06/09, John Foliot wrote: > > It is also important to note that the PF-WG specifically wrote: > > > > * We reject the argument that summary should be removed from the > > HTML > > * specification because it is not implemented on most web sites. We > > note > > * that accessibility is poorly supported on most web sites. The > > wider > > * web is not an example of good practice. > > Hm. I think we've already noted that "failed to establish a cowpath" is not > a design principle (though I think we can all take it as a cause for concern > and ask "why?", and if the problem is the specification, see whether we can > do better.) Indeed. When something out of HTML4 hasn't accumulated use over the past decade that HTML4 has been deployed, I think not looking for a "why" and "do we need to change something" is to close your eyes to reality. I do hope that the people advocating @summary has looked into these questions and come to the conclusion that @summary can not be improved. However they have unfortunately not provided any information about which alternatives were looked into and why @summary was deemed better. / Jonas
Received on Friday, 5 June 2009 23:32:00 UTC