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

Re: summary attribute compromise proposal

From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Date: Tue, 04 Aug 2009 22:36:03 +0200
Message-ID: <4A789BB3.8050704@gmx.de>
To: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
CC: HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>
Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
> 
> On Aug 4, 2009, at 1:29 PM, Julian Reschke wrote:
> 
>>
>>> ...
>>>> I agree it's good to make sure @summary is used for what it's there; 
>>>> I'm not yet convinced that an unconditional validator warning is the 
>>>> right way to get there, though.
>>> Do you think it's acceptable as part of a compromise, even if you're 
>>> not sure it's ideal?
>>> ...
>>
>> No, not really, as the behavior of validators really is a key question 
>> here (next to the (current) guidance not to use it).
> 
> What do you think is the proper validator behavior on encountering 
> summary="" - keeping in mind that providing no guidance at all to 
> authors is likely to be unacceptable to many people?

If by summary="" you mean an *empty* attribute, then yes, I think that 
should generate a warning. Another case for a warning might be summary 
text that is repeated in the table caption.

BR, Julian
Received on Tuesday, 4 August 2009 20:36:52 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 9 May 2012 00:16:43 GMT