- From: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
- Date: Wed, 24 Jun 2009 11:07:59 +0000 (UTC)
- To: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
- Cc: Laura Carlson <laura.lee.carlson@gmail.com>, HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>, Chris Wilson <Chris.Wilson@microsoft.com>, Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>, Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>, Catherine Roy <ecrire@catherine-roy.net>, Gez Lemon <gez.lemon@gmail.com>, Leif Halvard Silli <lhs@malform.no>, Philip TAYLOR <p.taylor@rhul.ac.uk>, Robert J Burns <rob@robburns.com>, Roger Johansson <roger@456bereastreet.com>, W3C WAI-XTECH <wai-xtech@w3.org>
On Wed, 24 Jun 2009, Sam Ruby wrote: > > > > I presume, from your e-mail, that you do not consider this to be > > debate: > > > > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2009Jun/0173.html > > > > Could you elaborate on why? > > I believe that the following: > > | > * We need summary for backward compatibility. > | > | HTML5 supports implementing the summary="" attribute for backwards > | compatibility as currently written. > > ... is an example of what Laura describes as "selectively choosing those > points in a subject which happen to favor a position, while ignoring the > rest". What were the points that were ignored here? > Another, more recent, example is "The browser vendors are the ultimate > gatekeepers, of course". What points does this ignore? I don't understand. (I've filed the remainder of your e-mail with other summary feedback; I'd like to focus on trying to understand exactly what I'm doing wrong before responding, since there's no point we responding if the way I do so is wrong.) -- Ian Hickson U+1047E )\._.,--....,'``. fL http://ln.hixie.ch/ U+263A /, _.. \ _\ ;`._ ,. Things that are impossible just take longer. `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
Received on Wednesday, 24 June 2009 11:16:13 UTC