W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html-a11y@w3.org > December 2009

(unknown charset) Re: Current state of the summary discussion

From: (unknown charset) Leif Halvard Silli <xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no>
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 2009 20:00:45 +0100
To: (unknown charset) Martin Kliehm <martin.kliehm@namics.com>
Cc: (unknown charset) Cynthia Shelly <cyns@microsoft.com>, HTML Accessibility Task Force <public-html-a11y@w3.org>
Message-ID: <20091217200045177003.4149e8b4@xn--mlform-iua.no>
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 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 27 April 2012 04:41:57 GMT