Re: ISSUE-92 cleanuptable - Chairs Solicit Alternate Proposals or Counter-Proposals

On Wed, Apr 21, 2010 at 8:40 AM, Shelley Powers <> wrote:
> I have to, reluctantly, protest this one, and also point out the
> obvious: until there's a determination on table summary, anything
> related to the table element description is uncertain. Issue 32 blocks
> Issue 92.
> My change proposal includes support for @summary. I do so because the
> arguments against its use have not effectively demonstrated the "harm"
> of having this attribute.

The @summary appearing in your example for Issue 92 is not required.
It can be removed without affecting the suitability of the example
table for resolving Issue 92.  If @summary is later decided to be
returned to the language, this example can be revised at that time and
as a part of resolving Issue 32.

It seems inappropriate to block issues that are merely tangentially
related to other issues that one is personally invested in, when the
resolution of the other issues does not materially effect the
resolution of the issues at hand.


Received on Wednesday, 21 April 2010 17:05:54 UTC