RE: ACTION-128: Draft @summary voting text in conjunction with PF

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


Received on Wednesday, 8 July 2009 17:28:32 UTC