- From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- Date: Mon, 12 Apr 2010 20:06:40 -0700
- To: Shelley Powers <shelley.just@gmail.com>
- Cc: HTMLWG WG <public-html@w3.org>
On Mon, Apr 12, 2010 at 7:57 PM, Shelley Powers <shelley.just@gmail.com> wrote: > On Mon, Apr 12, 2010 at 7:40 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com> wrote: >> On Mon, Apr 12, 2010 at 5:27 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com> wrote: >>> I find nothing objectionable in this Change Proposal, and agree that >>> the example table used in the spec is somewhat contrived and >>> unrealistic. The example table given in this Change Proposal seems >>> more realistic, exhibiting useful complexity without being >>> overwhelming. >> >> On second review, I have to retract my statement that there is >> "nothing objectionable". The table itself is generally acceptable as >> an example of a table. >> >> However, I had skipped over the part where the @summary attribute is >> reintroduced, and given an explanatory paragraph. That is not >> relevant to the Issue at hand, and given the current state of the >> @summary attribute, should be removed. If @summary is later >> reintroduced as a valid attribute in HTML, the example may be amended. > > Rather than address this one before @summary, I believe the co-chairs > should resolve the issues related to @summary, first, and then we can > revisit this change proposal. > > Co-chairs? The @summary point seems completely orthogonal to the issue at hand. I don't believe it's worthwhile holding up the resolution of this issue over something completely unrelated. ~TJ
Received on Tuesday, 13 April 2010 03:07:33 UTC