John Foliot wrote:
Sam Ruby wrote:
Meanwhile, the Working Group is within its rights to decline to approve
the publication of a working draft that contains micro-data, or to
insist that RDFa be included or that micro-data (or the recent change
to summary) be explicitly marked.
However, absolutely nobody has step forwarded and requested that any of
these be done.
Sam,
On July 26th, I asked the editor:
"Meanwhile, I respectfully request that you not impose your personal
opinion on @summary and restore it to a valid and current HTML attribute -
retaining its existing, current status as seen in both HTML4 and XHTML1"
[1]
This would be in keeping with the request and guidance that was formally
submitted to the HTML WG by the PFWG on June 3, 2009 [2]
(I won't spend too much time on Ian's rather dismissive response to either
request)
And so,
*IF* my request to return @summary to a valid conforming (non-obsolete)
attribute - complete with the removal of accessibility guidance that tells
authors not to use @summary (which is currently in direct contradiction
with WCAG 2 Guidance [3][4]) - until such time as this issue is properly
resolve, via an open and transparent process (even if that means going to
a vote), then I will remove my objection in the interest of forward
movement. I have no objection to the draft specification offering other
means of providing similar functionality, however I would suggest that in
the interest of accessibility that the editor is not the proper person to
provide opinionated guidance on which method is "best" - accessibility is
the W3C chartered domain of WAI and the PFWG.
You say that nobody has stepped forward? I just did.
Acknowledged.
1) I will continue to ask you to reconsider the following objection:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2009Jul/0826.html
2) The way I would prefer to proceed with issues like this is for people
like yourself to draft an even-toned text expressing the fact that this
is an "open issue" (indicated in red boxes in the document, and marked
up with class="XXX") and for the draft to be published after this has
been added to the document. By even toned, I mean that things like
"unresolved" and "direct contradiction with WCAG 2 Guidance" are fine,
but avoiding commentary such as "dismissive", "open", and "transparent".
But I will note that that is my preference, as one member of the working
group. Others may feel that this is not sufficient. I will say that
after meeting with Cynthia Shelly today, I am confident that she will be
drafting a document for consideration by the working group, and that may
very well be why I feel comfortable simply noting the requirement at
this time and moving on.
JF
- Sam Ruby
[1 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2009Jul/0775.html ]
[2 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-archive/2009Jun/0026.html ]
[3 http://www.w3.org/TR/2008/NOTE-WCAG20-TECHS-20081211/H73 ]
[4
http://www.w3.org/TR/2008/NOTE-UNDERSTANDING-WCAG20-20081211/content-struc
ture-separation-programmatic.html ]
