- From: John Foliot <jfoliot@stanford.edu>
- Date: Wed, 8 Jul 2009 10:27:50 -0700 (PDT)
- To: "'James Graham'" <jgraham@opera.com>, "'Maciej Stachowiak'" <mjs@apple.com>
- Cc: "'Ian Hickson'" <ian@hixie.ch>, "'Joshue O Connor'" <joshue.oconnor@cfit.ie>, <public-html@w3.org>, <wai-xtech@w3.org>
Reposted due to delivery errors of original posting James Graham wrote: > > FWIW I would prefer not to have an "conformant with warnings" level of > conformance but I can accept it if it helps us make progress with the > spec. I would request the additional change that the spec include a > description of the purpose of features that generate warnings e.g. > > "The summary attribute on table elements was used in older versions of > HTML for authors to provide a description of the structure of complex > tables. Authors should not use this attribute in HTML 5 documents but > should instead use the caption element or one of the other techniques > described in the table section to provide this information." > I'm sorry James, but your proposed text would actually harm progress here. Numerous respondents have underscored the fact that caption and summary are different beasts and a continued insistence that they are "close enough" will only encourage continued agitation - they are not. A hamburger is not a hotdog, even if you have both at your backyard BBQ. Personally I do not understand the harm in keeping summary in the spec as conformant, but with guidance that there might be a better way today. As Chaals pointed out earlier, introducing a proposed 'new better way' should not be a criteria for instant removal of the previous 'better way'. I suspect that if sufficient numbers still hold a similar view as James (caption can replace summary) that consensus has not yet been reached and we need to proceed with a vote. My $0.02 JF
Received on Wednesday, 8 July 2009 17:28:32 UTC