- From: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
- Date: Wed, 24 Jun 2009 07:35:17 -0400
- To: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
- 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>
- public-html + www-archive 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 >>> >>> Could you elaborate on why? >> I believe that the following: >> >> | > * 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. >> 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. > (I've filed the remainder of your e-mail with other summary feedback; I'd > like to focus on trying to understand exactly what I'm doing wrong before > responding, since there's no point we responding if the way I do so is > wrong.) The remainder of my email was intended to demonstrate what I thought would have been a response more conducive to continuing a dialog; my preference as chair is to minimize the times when I actively take a position myself. Ian, you produce (and consume!) an immense amount of material. The fact that I was able to find something in the one email that you cited which might be construed by some as being /incomplete/ (as opposed to *wrong*) is not surprising. Meanwhile, I failed to be explicit. 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. - Sam Ruby
Received on Wednesday, 24 June 2009 11:36:00 UTC