- From: Lachlan Hunt <lachlan.hunt@lachy.id.au>
- Date: Mon, 03 Aug 2009 05:34:04 +0200
- To: John Foliot <jfoliot@stanford.edu>
- Cc: 'Sam Ruby' <rubys@intertwingly.net>, 'HTML WG' <public-html@w3.org>, 'W3C WAI-XTECH' <wai-xtech@w3.org>
John Foliot wrote: > Thus the difference between my "respect" Draft and the "WHAT WG" Draft are > pretty simple: @summary is restored to conformant, and the WAI conflicting > author guidance language was removed. > (this of course leaves open the door of working with WAI to come to a > resolution, but it removes the ability of WHAT WG to dictate to WAI) From my perspective, it seems that, despite knowing that the issue will remain open and that any outcome is possible in the future, your motivation for taking this route is to circumvent the process that has so far been applied to every other feature either added to or rejected from the spec. What I do not understand is why it is so important for you to achieve this minor victory of having @summary at least temporarily reinstated now knowing full well that it stands every chance of being overturned based on new evidence in a subsequent draft once this issue really is resolved. Likewise, the text in Hixie's current draft also stands equal chance of being overturned based on new evidence. So far, it seems you've done a lot of complaining about how you claim the draft simply reflects Hixie's own opinion, but yet don't seem to consider it hypocritical that the draft you have proposed merely reflects your personal opinion. Personally, it is of little concern to me in what state the summary attribute is in the upcoming Working Draft. I believe it is more important continue investigating the issue in terms of research and evidence, rather than bickering about what one Working Draft, published solely to meet the heartbeat requirement, says, and using subversive tactics to get your way. > You either agree with the notion that the draft cannot conflict with WAI > and that at the very least accessibility guidance should be arrived at > *with* WAI, and not externally from WAI, or you don't - that's the real > question to me... In this case, I do agree with you that we should be working with WAI to resolve any conflicts between HTML5 and the advisory techniques from WCAG2. But I believe it is the WCAG2 Tecniques note that needs to be updated to suit the features available HTML5, rather than having HTML5 comply with advice designed for prior versions of HTML, espeically without irrefutable evidence that such advice really is optimal. -- Lachlan Hunt - Opera Software http://lachy.id.au/ http://www.opera.com/
Received on Monday, 3 August 2009 03:34:45 UTC