- From: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
- Date: Tue, 04 Aug 2009 13:39:40 -0700
- To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Cc: HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>
On Aug 4, 2009, at 1:36 PM, Julian Reschke wrote: > 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. No, I mean a summary attribute being present at all, regardless of its value. What do you think should be the validator behavior for that case? Regards, Maciej
Received on Tuesday, 4 August 2009 20:40:20 UTC