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.
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."
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."
Cheers,
- Sam Ruby
[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2009Jun/0652.html
