Re: Discussion: Accessibility Issues Procedure

On Sat, 25 Jul 2009, Sam Ruby wrote:
> Let me enumerate a few possible ways forward. [...]
> Option #5 is to accept what currently is in Ian's draft.

Option #6 is for people to actually respond to my requests for 
explanations of the various proposals that people have made, so that I can 
actually understand people's positions. As has been demonstrated multiple 
times even with the summary="" attribute, when people make reasoned 
arguments and demonstrate why their proposals are a good idea, I change 
the spec to follow them.

The spec right now is not at all what I would like it to be for summary="" 
because it is written based on compelling arguments and data, not on what 
I want. (Specifically: I would like to just obsolete the sumary="" 
attribute entirely and not include it even in UA conformance criteria, 
replacing it entirely with the solutions that are far more likely to 
actually improve accessibility of the Web. But what I want isn't relevant 
to what the spec says, because I don't base it on opinons.)

Ian Hickson               U+1047E                )\._.,--....,'``.    fL       U+263A                /,   _.. \   _\  ;`._ ,.
Things that are impossible just take longer.   `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'

Received on Sunday, 26 July 2009 03:21:00 UTC