At 11:17 -0500 29/06/09, Shelley Powers wrote: > >> Wouldn't another set of actions be a stronger clarification in the >>> HTML 5 specification about how the attribute is to be used? Isn't that >>> just as viable an action to take based on the concern? >> > > If the hypothesis is that summary is "irrecoverably polluted", >which is what >> I wrote, then clarification of how we'd hoped it would have been used >> instead, is rather backwards-looking, isn't it? >> > >But can't we make the same claim about most of the web, and hence most >web elements? After all, HTML tables are "irrecoverably polluted" if >one examines the data that Philip derived. No, by "irrecoverably polluted" I mean a state in which the useless so dramatically outnumbers the useful that no-one bothers to use the facility in question any more, since they have no expectation of finding anything useful. A close analogy would be email without spam filters; if I got of the order of 5,000 emails a week and had to sift those for the 5 or so that are 'real', I might not bother. (Yes, one of my accounts is that low-volume, as it happens, but it also has an excellent ISP spam filter, happily). -- David Singer Multimedia Standards, Apple Inc.Received on Tuesday, 30 June 2009 08:14:57 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Saturday, 9 October 2021 18:44:49 UTC