Henri Sivonen On 09-06-05 10.27:
On Jun 5, 2009, at 03:05, Jonas Sicking wrote:
But I will note that I also pointed out the need to gather data. It's
easy to have an opinion, but we won't know whose opinion is right
until we get some data.
@summary has been specified for over 10 years, so there should be
plenty of data out there to show if it has been a good idea or not.
Wouldn't you agree?
I think the best data collection suggestion so far was made by Philip
Taylor on IRC yesterday:
http://krijnhoetmer.nl/irc-logs/whatwg/20090604#l-1058
Of course, it wouldn't help unless people agree on a cut-off point. E.g.
whether a feature is a failure if the revealed preference of 80% of the
sample of the constituency is to route around the feature? 50%, 90%, 99%?
Ian does not propose to /remove/ the table summary feature.
Instead, his draft proposes to force the summary feature upon all
users, and in a such way that it becomes impossible to distinguish
the summary from the caption.
Thus those numbers would not help us.
From the IRC logs[1]
# [21:37] <shelleyp> Yes, but interpretation of whether a problem
is "solved" are frequently based on biased, subjective viewpoints
# [21:38] <Hixie> shelleyp: if so, then your problem description
is far too vague
[1] http://krijnhoetmer.nl/irc-logs/whatwg/20090604
--
leif halvard silli
