Re: [html] Summary draft

On Sep 14, 2009, at 10:06 PM, John Foliot wrote:

> A review today of
> confirms that it still states: "Note: The summary attribute, defined  
> in
> the table section, will also trigger a warning.", still without the
> warning being articulated.  Again, Cynthia's draft text is an  
> attempt to
> clarify this issue, by floating draft text that originates via PFWG,  
> as
> previously agreed - "(hopefully by consensus, and not by proxy)".
> Maciej, this is what I "personally signed off" on in good faith, after
> numerous emails hashed out what the *issues* were - and front and  
> center
> was that the appropriate place for accessible author guidance should  
> first
> rest with WAI/PFWG.

I think Cynthia is fully entitled to suggest draft text and you are  
fully entitled to support her efforts. However, I think it is unfair  
to portray the current spec text as the unilateral work of Ian, or as  
somehow shocking to the conscience. It was a hard-fought compromise  
after much discussion. That doesn't mean we can't improve it, but  
let's not attack each other over the results of the last round of work.

> Yet today, Ian writes to say that he doesn't understand.  Either he
> doesn't read the emails he claims he reads, or he is a complete  
> idiot, or
> he is simply being petulant and an obstructionist.  So pardon me if my
> frustration here appears somewhat 'out of check'.

I think we should review Cynthia's text, see what we can learn from  
it, and ideally distill it into specific proposals. I've tried to  
start doing that myself. I would like Ian not to disrupt that process.  
I would also like you not to disrupt that process. Language like the  
above is not constructive. Let's do our best to keep this a reasoned  
discussion, and keep the personal attacks out of it.


Received on Tuesday, 15 September 2009 05:26:26 UTC