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

Re: Current state of the summary discussion

From: Martin Kliehm <martin.kliehm@namics.com>
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 2009 20:25:18 +0100
To: Leif Halvard Silli <xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no>
Message-Id: <8A447971-8CCA-4398-B24F-9842DE9B9E06@namics.com>
Cc: Cynthia Shelly <cyns@microsoft.com>, HTML Accessibility Task Force <public-html-a11y@w3.org>
On 17.12.2009, at 20:00, Leif Halvard Silli wrote:

> 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].

Yes, thanks for the inspiration. ;-)

I believe since nobody objects @datetime and <time> in its two  
manifestations, using it as an analogy may help to get the point  
through.

> 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.

I understand the rationale, but do you think it is clear for authors  
where the difference is between <caption> and <summary> if one is  
contained within the other? They both suggest something similar.

Cheers,
   Martin
Received on Thursday, 17 December 2009 19:25:09 GMT

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