Warning: Cannot modify header information - headers already sent by (output started at /home/cssquirrel/www.cssquirrel.com/blog/index.php:4) in /home/cssquirrel/www.cssquirrel.com/blog/wp-includes/feed-rss2-comments.php on line 8
Comments on: Comic Update: Redefining Resolved http://cssquirrel.com/blog/2009/10/06/comic-update-redefining-resolved/ opinions and news on web design Mon, 12 Dec 2011 18:22:38 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: Laura http://cssquirrel.com/blog/2009/10/06/comic-update-redefining-resolved/comment-page-1/#comment-27907 Laura Wed, 07 Oct 2009 11:43:32 +0000 http://www.cssquirrel.com/?p=461#comment-27907 Update: A new HTML5 Working Group Decision Policy [1] in WG discussion [2]. [1] http://dev.w3.org/html5/decision-policy/decision-policy.html [2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2009Oct/0189.html Update:

A new HTML5 Working Group Decision Policy [1] in WG discussion [2].

[1] http://dev.w3.org/html5/decision-policy/decision-policy.html
[2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2009Oct/0189.html

]]> By: Toby Inkster http://cssquirrel.com/blog/2009/10/06/comic-update-redefining-resolved/comment-page-1/#comment-27901 Toby Inkster Wed, 07 Oct 2009 08:35:16 +0000 http://www.cssquirrel.com/?p=461#comment-27901 The "irony mark": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irony_mark The “irony mark”:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irony_mark

]]> By: Stéphane Deschamps http://cssquirrel.com/blog/2009/10/06/comic-update-redefining-resolved/comment-page-1/#comment-27881 Stéphane Deschamps Tue, 06 Oct 2009 19:23:34 +0000 http://www.cssquirrel.com/?p=461#comment-27881 Actually that's good that native-english people explain their views on that much better than us foreigners can. Thanks Kyle. And thanks John Foliot for explicitly restating stuff. Me? I love @summary. I don't mind if it's not mandatory, but it's useful when needed. Actually that’s good that native-english people explain their views on that much better than us foreigners can. Thanks Kyle. And thanks John Foliot for explicitly restating stuff.

Me? I love @summary. I don’t mind if it’s not mandatory, but it’s useful when needed.

]]> By: Rhyaniwyn http://cssquirrel.com/blog/2009/10/06/comic-update-redefining-resolved/comment-page-1/#comment-27878 Rhyaniwyn Tue, 06 Oct 2009 18:14:41 +0000 http://www.cssquirrel.com/?p=461#comment-27878 I don't want to "diss" HTML5. There's plenty to like. But when it comes down to actually writing whole sites in it, there are little details I disagree with. I know of only a few right now (some were fixed), but I anticipate that I will run into a couple more once I start really using it. There's been too much bias and lack of rigor in the process. It's not so much that I think my opinions definitely right. It's that I'm not actually very difficult to persuade. There are decisions in the HTML5 spec that I don't agree with and the reason behind which (where known) I don't find persuasive. Since I refuse to subject myself to the hostility of the mailing list (it's no great loss -- I'm no genius and most of my thoughts have been previously expressed by others), what else am I to do? I could stick with XHTML 1 or HTML 4 for the next 10 years until another spec comes along. But I imagine I'll be using HTML5 at least some of the time. With that thought in mind I've formed a tentative plan. For many years I've made a point to ensure that my websites validate. With HTML5 I suspect I'll use validation as I did in my early days... to catch typos. I'll ignore the spec where I disagree with it. It's a weird and guilty feeling. There are so many good reasons to follow standards, even when they aren't entirely satisfactory. But I'm not going to adhere to any rule that, in my considered opinion, is genuinely silly. I don’t want to “diss” HTML5. There’s plenty to like. But when it comes down to actually writing whole sites in it, there are little details I disagree with. I know of only a few right now (some were fixed), but I anticipate that I will run into a couple more once I start really using it.

There’s been too much bias and lack of rigor in the process. It’s not so much that I think my opinions definitely right. It’s that I’m not actually very difficult to persuade. There are decisions in the HTML5 spec that I don’t agree with and the reason behind which (where known) I don’t find persuasive.

Since I refuse to subject myself to the hostility of the mailing list (it’s no great loss — I’m no genius and most of my thoughts have been previously expressed by others), what else am I to do? I could stick with XHTML 1 or HTML 4 for the next 10 years until another spec comes along. But I imagine I’ll be using HTML5 at least some of the time.

With that thought in mind I’ve formed a tentative plan. For many years I’ve made a point to ensure that my websites validate. With HTML5 I suspect I’ll use validation as I did in my early days… to catch typos. I’ll ignore the spec where I disagree with it.

It’s a weird and guilty feeling. There are so many good reasons to follow standards, even when they aren’t entirely satisfactory. But I’m not going to adhere to any rule that, in my considered opinion, is genuinely silly.

]]> By: John Foliot http://cssquirrel.com/blog/2009/10/06/comic-update-redefining-resolved/comment-page-1/#comment-27877 John Foliot Tue, 06 Oct 2009 17:45:07 +0000 http://www.cssquirrel.com/?p=461#comment-27877 To be very clear, at http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=7633#c1 Ian Hixson states "The attribute, even though conforming, is strongly discouraged, which is why there's no example." Discouraged by whom? Certainly not the W3C (find me proof of that assertion), nor, more importantly, W3C's Web Accessibility Initiative, where, in WCAG 2 one of the specifically stated means of achieving Success Criteria is to use the summary attribute on tables (http://www.w3.org/TR/2008/NOTE-WCAG20-TECHS-20081211/H73) *NONE* of the other suggestions within the Draft HTML5 spec deliver the same functionality that @summary delivers, despite Hixie's personal interpretation. Currently Cynthia Shelley (Microsoft) is working on behalf of the WAI Protocols and Formats Working Group to craft an appropriate 'message' to attach to the @summary attribute, including a useful and accurate example (provided by Wendy Chisholm). Cynthia reported to the HTML WG on Sept 14th with a useful interim update (http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2009Sep/0553.html), so if Ian "WONTFIX" he should step aside and let others "FIX" - wishful thinking on his behalf is not how Standards should be written. Stay tuned for more... To be very clear, at http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=7633#c1 Ian Hixson states “The attribute, even though conforming, is strongly discouraged, which is why there’s no example.”

Discouraged by whom? Certainly not the W3C (find me proof of that assertion), nor, more importantly, W3C’s Web Accessibility Initiative, where, in WCAG 2 one of the specifically stated means of achieving Success Criteria is to use the summary attribute on tables (http://www.w3.org/TR/2008/NOTE-WCAG20-TECHS-20081211/H73)

*NONE* of the other suggestions within the Draft HTML5 spec deliver the same functionality that @summary delivers, despite Hixie’s personal interpretation.

Currently Cynthia Shelley (Microsoft) is working on behalf of the WAI Protocols and Formats Working Group to craft an appropriate ‘message’ to attach to the @summary attribute, including a useful and accurate example (provided by Wendy Chisholm). Cynthia reported to the HTML WG on Sept 14th with a useful interim update (http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2009Sep/0553.html), so if Ian “WONTFIX” he should step aside and let others “FIX” – wishful thinking on his behalf is not how Standards should be written.

Stay tuned for more…

]]> By: Laura http://cssquirrel.com/blog/2009/10/06/comic-update-redefining-resolved/comment-page-1/#comment-27876 Laura Tue, 06 Oct 2009 17:37:17 +0000 http://www.cssquirrel.com/?p=461#comment-27876 This type of thing has happen previously. A year and a half ago the editor closed an HTML tracker issue without it being resolved. http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2008Apr/0222.html This type of thing has happen previously. A year and a half ago the editor closed an HTML tracker issue without it being resolved.
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2008Apr/0222.html

]]> By: Laura Carlson (lauracarlson) 's status on Tuesday, 06-Oct-09 17:21:19 UTC - Identi.ca http://cssquirrel.com/blog/2009/10/06/comic-update-redefining-resolved/comment-page-1/#comment-27875 Laura Carlson (lauracarlson) 's status on Tuesday, 06-Oct-09 17:21:19 UTC - Identi.ca Tue, 06 Oct 2009 17:21:33 +0000 http://www.cssquirrel.com/?p=461#comment-27875 [...] http://www.cssquirrel.com/2009/10/06/comic-update-redefining-resolved/ [...] [...] http://www.cssquirrel.com/2009/10/06/comic-update-redefining-resolved/ [...]

]]> By: Kyle Weems http://cssquirrel.com/blog/2009/10/06/comic-update-redefining-resolved/comment-page-1/#comment-27874 Kyle Weems Tue, 06 Oct 2009 17:14:34 +0000 http://www.cssquirrel.com/?p=461#comment-27874 I saw that, and marveled at that claim. Either it is obsolete, or it is not. It's an attribute, not a subatomic particle in some sort of quantum flux. I saw that, and marveled at that claim. Either it is obsolete, or it is not. It’s an attribute, not a subatomic particle in some sort of quantum flux.

]]> By: Julian Reschke http://cssquirrel.com/blog/2009/10/06/comic-update-redefining-resolved/comment-page-1/#comment-27873 Julian Reschke Tue, 06 Oct 2009 16:51:19 +0000 http://www.cssquirrel.com/?p=461#comment-27873 My favorite is claiming "it's not obsolete" when it appears under "Warnings for obsolete but conforming features" features. My favorite is claiming “it’s not obsolete” when it appears under “Warnings for obsolete but conforming features” features.

]]>