W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html-a11y@w3.org > March 2010

Re: Table Summary Change Proposal

From: Leif Halvard Silli <xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no>
Date: Mon, 1 Mar 2010 13:07:05 +0100
To: "public-html-a11y@w3.org" <public-html-a11y@w3.org>
Message-ID: <20100301130705012924.cde55a9a@xn--mlform-iua.no>
I have reworked the change proposal again, by answering the questions I 
asked below ...

http://www.w3.org/html/wg/wiki/ChangeProposals/tableSummaryProposal

Changes noted below:

Leif Halvard Silli, Sun, 28 Feb 2010 21:21:59 +0100:

> This new proposal is simpler: It allows up to two caption elements, as 
> long as one of them is pointed to via aria-describedby.

No longer necessary - the second caption *is* a table summary.

> The proposal 
> also designates the role of aria-describedby and aria-labelledby 
> differently. 
> 
> 	(Because ... I consulted the ARIA spec ... and @aria-labelledby 
> basically can be used to point to a caption element. I am still 
> interested in this subject though ... It could still be that 
> aria-labelledby="caption-with-summary" would be more meaningful. **I am 
> very interested in comments about this.**)

Upon reading the specs, I decided once more that the 'table summary' 
concept belongs to 'aria-labelledby'.

[...]
> Questions: 
> 
> 	* What about not requiring aria-describedby, as long as the caption 
> with the 'table summary' appears *after* the other <caption>?
> 	* aria-labelledby vs aria-describedby - see above.

See answer above, and on the web page.
-- 
leif halvard silli
Received on Monday, 1 March 2010 12:07:41 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 27 April 2012 04:42:03 GMT