- From: Laura Carlson <laura.lee.carlson@gmail.com>
- Date: Thu, 28 Jan 2010 04:05:28 -0600
- To: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>
- Cc: HTML Accessibility Task Force <public-html-a11y@w3.org>, Shelley Powers <shelley.just@gmail.com>, Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>, "public-html@w3.org WG" <public-html@w3.org>
On 1/27/10, Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc> wrote: > On Wed, Jan 27, 2010 at 9:15 PM, Shelley Powers <shelley.just@gmail.com> > wrote: >> >> >> On Wed, Jan 27, 2010 at 9:57 PM, Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com> wrote: >>> >>> The Chairs would like to move more issues forward in the process. Here >>> are >>> the ones we are currently concentrating on: >>> >>> ISSUE-27 rel-ownership >>> - Two concerns were raised about this proposal (registry licensing and >>> advisement to use a Web-based development process), but Mark Nottingham >>> seems to have addressed both. We'd like to ask Tantek and Henri to verify >>> whether their concerns are sufficiently addressed. >>> - If existing concerns are addressed, and no new objections come up, >>> we >>> will assume there is no need to call for counter-proposals. Instead we >>> will >>> seek amicable resolution (if Ian is willing to just go ahead and make the >>> change), or issue a Call for Consensus on the submitted Change Proposal. >>> >>> ISSUE-66 image-analysis >>> - From discussion, it seems like there is a good possibility that we >>> can come to a compromise agreement and settle by amicable resolution. >>> That >>> would be the preferred outcome. We're looking to Ian to propose some text >>> that could be generally agreeable based on the discussion. >>> - If we don't come to amicable resolution, then we will likely call >>> for >>> counter-proposals / alternate proposals, since there was at least some >>> disagreement voiced with the original proposal as written. >>> >>> IMAGE-83 dt-dd-semantics >>> - We seem to have near-total agreement on an amicable resolution to >>> this issue, with one sticking point. Namely, Shelley objects to using >>> <summary> as the element that holds the caption/label/summary of >>> <details>, >>> while Ian would prefer to use that to his second choice, <dsummary>. We >>> will >>> ask one last time if either is willing to live with their less preferred >>> option, and if so try to settle this by amicable resolution. >>> - If neither is willing to back down, then I will make a final >>> adjustment to my Change Proposal and ask the other two Chairs to take the >>> next action. It is likely they would call for consensus on it at that >>> point. >>> >> >> I have already compromised on this issue, by being willing to give up the >> idea of a caption that could be used with many elements, given a name of >> fltcap. I was willing to go with separate elements for both figure and >> details, and was willing to go with the options given, except summary for >> details. I stated that summary already exists as an attribute for the >> table >> element, is an attribute that has had considerable discussion in the last >> few years, and probably in the future, and that creating this new element >> with the same name will generate confusion. >> In response to the mention that there are other element/attribute name >> pairs, my response was that with these pairs, the purpose of the >> element/attributes was the same or similar, but the same could not be said >> about the summary attribute for the table element, and a captioning >> element >> for the details element. >> In addition, as Laura Carlson also pointed out[1], one suggestion still >> under consideration as an alternative for the summary attribute was a >> summary element in the table element, performing the same function of the >> summary attribute. I do not believe this alternative has been officially >> rejected, and the use of summary for the details element abrogates this >> previously existing alternative under consideration for the summary >> attribute. And again, a summary element unrelated to previous discussions, >> will cause confusion. >> From what I've been able to deduce from the discussions, the reason for >> using summary seems to be more one of personal opinion, than anything >> based >> on technical merit[2]. The fact that summary "reads nicely" is a >> subjective >> reason, rather than a reason based on technical merit[3]. The objections >> to >> something like dsummary seem to be primarily one of the use of the letter >> to >> differentiate the element from the summary attribute--a matter of >> aesthetics. However there is precedence in HTML for this type of naming: >> iframe, thead, tbody, and so on. I would think it preferable to use this >> approach than using a name that has had such discussion and debate in the >> HTML WG for months, if not years, and which does not share a similar >> purpose. Moreover, one that is still under active debate as an >> accessibility >> alternative to the summary attribute[4]. >> I feel that I have compromised, considerably, in this issue, and have >> given >> sound arguments for my objection to the use of summary. I have no interest >> in this going to a poll, and ask the HTML5 editor to join me in >> compromising >> in order to achieve consensus. >> Shelley Powers >> [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2010Jan/1191.html >> [2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2010Jan/1187.html >> [3] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2010Jan/1188.html >> [4] http://esw.w3.org/topic/HTML/SummaryForTABLE#head-1d4cc386df3edd130dd677e056ba2bf98961145a > > How about using <summary> for now, but deciding to change the name if > we indeed adopt a <summary> element for <table>? What would the process to reverse that decision entail? > I'd also note that I in a recent email asked what the purpose of a > <summary> element under <table> would solve, that isn't solved by the > aria-describedby attribute. No reply to this question has been sent > yet, though it wasn't very long since I posed the question so one > might still appear. The accessibility task force has not discussed <summary> yet. I copied Tab's earlier email [1] to the group and am doing the same with this email. [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-a11y/2010Jan/0284.html Related: <summary> email http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-a11y/2010Jan/0280.html Draft Accessibility Consensus Procedure http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-a11y/2010Jan/0302.html Best Regards, Laura -- Laura L. Carlson
Received on Thursday, 28 January 2010 10:05:57 UTC