- From: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
- Date: Wed, 24 Jun 2009 23:57:11 +0000 (UTC)
- To: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
- Cc: Laura Carlson <laura.lee.carlson@gmail.com>, www-archive <www-archive@w3.org>, Chris Wilson <Chris.Wilson@microsoft.com>, Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>, Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>, Catherine Roy <ecrire@catherine-roy.net>, Gez Lemon <gez.lemon@gmail.com>, Leif Halvard Silli <lhs@malform.no>, Philip TAYLOR <p.taylor@rhul.ac.uk>, Robert J Burns <rob@robburns.com>, Roger Johansson <roger@456bereastreet.com>, W3C WAI-XTECH <wai-xtech@w3.org>
On Wed, 24 Jun 2009, Sam Ruby wrote: > Ian Hickson wrote: > > On Wed, 24 Jun 2009, Sam Ruby wrote: > > > Ian Hickson wrote: > > > > On Wed, 24 Jun 2009, Sam Ruby wrote: > > > > > > I presume, from your e-mail, that you do not consider this to be > > > > > > debate: > > > > > > > > > > > > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2009Jun/0173.html > > > > > | > * We need summary for backward compatibility. > > > > > | > > > > > | HTML5 supports implementing the summary="" attribute for backwards > > > > > | compatibility as currently written. > > > > > > > > > > ... is an example of what Laura describes as "selectively choosing > > > > > those points in a subject which happen to favor a position, while > > > > > ignoring the rest". > > > > What were the points that were ignored here? > > > The fact that summary is non-conforming. > > > > Is that relevant to issues of backwards-compatibility? I was under the > > impression that it was not. I wasn't trying to ignore that or selectively > > chose a point here. > > Search for "backward compatibility" here: > > http://esw.w3.org/topic/HTML/SummaryForTABLE#head-222af24a2b1dcdc3afe5e3036551b70f99cf232c > > It is entirely possible that the two of you are using this term in > different ways -- you narrowly concerning only browser vendors, and > Laura inclusively to include authoring tools. Possibly... Laura, can you confirm? Do you mean "graceful degradation", that is, new authoring tools being compatible with older user agents, rather than legacy documents being compatible with new user agents? > > > > > Another, more recent, example is "The browser vendors are the ultimate > > > > > gatekeepers, of course". > > > > What points does this ignore? I don't understand. > > > The fact that no behavior is being asked of the browser vendors. > > > > If UAs do nothing with summary="", it won't have any effect on > > accessibility. So unless I'm misundertanding something fundamental, this is > > false. > > But you didn't say "The UAs are the ultimate gatekeepers". You said > "Browser Vendors". In any case, Mike Smith correctly noted[1] that "... > they're certainly not the ultimate gatekeepers as far as decisions about > document conformance." I grant you that my statement was overly broad. > > > The fact that I did not comment on the remainder of the post you > > > cited is an indication that I believe that it did further the > > > dialog. > > > > This is encouraging; however, it seems that Laura does not share your > > view, so it would be helpful is Laura could explain why. > > She might not, and her responding may be helpful; but at this point I > will add that your responses to me on this thread reinforce the notion > that you are "making every effort to look right no matter what the facts > may be." I'm trying to work out how I am not doing what Laura wants me to do. That I am in the wrong here is pretty much a given, the question is how, so that I can fix it. -- Ian Hickson U+1047E )\._.,--....,'``. fL http://ln.hixie.ch/ U+263A /, _.. \ _\ ;`._ ,. Things that are impossible just take longer. `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
Received on Wednesday, 24 June 2009 23:57:52 UTC