W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html-bugzilla@w3.org > February 2012

[Bug 14107] Non-conformance of the summary attribute for the table element makes WCAG 1.0 compliance impossible

From: <bugzilla@jessica.w3.org>
Date: Sun, 05 Feb 2012 23:32:00 +0000
To: public-html-bugzilla@w3.org
Message-Id: <E1RuBYu-0001zF-El@jessica.w3.org>

--- Comment #19 from theimp@iinet.net.au 2012-02-05 23:31:56 UTC ---
> The checkpoint does not normatively require the use of the summary attribute it normatively requires the provision of summary information for data tables. The example of the summary attribute is from the techniques document which is non normative.

I've been over this, in comment #4 and comment #6 primarily - there is no
indication within WCAG 1.0 as to how such examples are to be interpreted.
However, the example is in a normative section (Checkpoint 5.5), and is not
written to indicate that other techniques might be usable (as most such
examples are).

If the reading that I've described in this bug is a mis-reading, then it is a
mis-reading that the world's top web accessibility experts and senior
policymakers have been making for over ten years.

> The abstract of the techniques document states:

That, on the other hand, is completely non-normative.

Furthermore, as I mentioned in comment #16, no alternatives are actually
offered in that document or in any other related document - which does not mean
that none exist, but combined with the normative text, it does indicate why
such an interpretation could be reasonably drawn.

> Priority 3

No, because the Priorities are organized into Conformance Levels, and these are
the levels specified by policy.

The Priorities do not specify Conformance: they specify the impact of

(If they did, you'd have the ridiculous situation where claiming conformance to
Level AAA would require meeting only Level A checkpoints).

Configure bugmail: https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the QA contact for the bug.
Received on Sunday, 5 February 2012 23:32:01 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 16:31:26 UTC