- 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
