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

Re: summary attribute compromise proposal

From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Date: Thu, 06 Aug 2009 12:09:44 +0200
Message-ID: <4A7AABE8.6030204@gmx.de>
To: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
CC: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>, HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>
Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
> 
> On Aug 5, 2009, at 4:16 PM, Ian Hickson wrote:
> 
>> On Wed, 5 Aug 2009, Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
>>>
>>> Thus, I hope you will reconsider.
>>
>> I've updated the spec to do what you proposed.
> 
> Thanks. I read over your changes, and as far as I'm concerned, the new 
> spec text is in line with my compromise proposal.
> 
> For anyone who would like to check, here's how summary is now defined in 
> the <table> section: 
> <http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/#attr-table-summary> 
> And the only remaining mention in the "conforming but obsolete features" 
> section is a brief note indicating that the summary attribute gives a 
> warning: 
> <http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/#conforming-but-obsolete-features>. 
> 
> 
> I think this is the best arrangement we can get in terms of a compromise 
> that both sides can live with. I understand people have concerns with 
> various aspects. But I personally do not think I can push the proposal 
> much in either direction without completely losing the support of one 
> side or the other. So I strongly urge everyone to take time and consider 
> whether this is something they can live with. If anyone wants to ask for 
> more concessions, then I don't think I could lend my support such an 
> effort.

I appreciate the work that has been put into getting here, which is 
clearly better than what we had before.

Is it good enough? I don't think so.

For instance, the spec still states:

"The summary  attribute on table elements was suggested in earlier 
versions of the language as a technique for providing explanatory text 
for complex tables for users of screen readers. One of the techniques 
described  above should be used instead."

...which I think is the wrong thing to do if one believes that @summary 
*does* have a special purpose for screen readers, which none of the 
alternatives have.

Furthermore, the spec still lists @summary under "obsolete but conforming".

BR, Julian
Received on Thursday, 6 August 2009 10:10:29 GMT

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