- From: Leif Halvard Silli <xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no>
- Date: Thu, 17 Dec 2009 20:00:45 +0100
- To: Martin Kliehm <martin.kliehm@namics.com>
- Cc: Cynthia Shelly <cyns@microsoft.com>, HTML Accessibility Task Force <public-html-a11y@w3.org>
Martin Kliehm, Thu, 17 Dec 2009 18:08:10 +0100: > So it seems a main objection is that @summary metadata is hidden. It > struck me that it is the same with the @datetime attribute of <ins> > and <del> elements. The difference is that there's also the <time> > element in case you prefer datetime to be visible. > > So for consistency, why don't we keep @summary which is also > backwards compatible, and add something redundant like a <summary> > element for people who want to make it visible or change the > visibility using CSS? Thus everybody should be happy. This is more or less exactly what I mentioned on IRC[1]. My idea is to join <summary> with Ian's current proposal to allow <caption> to contain more than a caption is currently allowed. Thus make <summary> a container for this additional info. [1]: 17:47:00 - LeifHS: <summary>: Many authors, such as in government, like to know when they have fulfilled their duty. Today this is "easy": Did you use @summary? Yes or no? If there were a corresponding visible <summary> element (as child of <caption>, I see no other option), then the question could be: Did you use either @summary or <summary>. In my view it is also needed to separate the "clean" caption information from the explanation information that HTML 5 now allows inside <caption>. [Sorry for the interruption.] -- leif halvard silli
Received on Thursday, 17 December 2009 19:07:56 UTC