- From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Date: Thu, 06 Aug 2009 19:07:22 +0200
- To: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
- CC: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>, HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>
Maciej Stachowiak wrote: > ... > I think you have to read it in context. Notice how those two sentences > are followed by a long paragraph explaining the right considerations for > when summary is appropriate. > > Keep in mind that in addition to the sentence that authors SHOULD use > one of the other techniques, the listing of the summary attribute means > that authors MAY use it. I think this makes sense given the guidance. "MAY do a" + "SHOULD NOT do a" does not work, using RFC2119 terminology. Either it's ok, or not. If it's ok in some cases (which it is), then "should not" is the wrong way to talk about it. >> ...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. > > If you read the following guidance, I think readers get the right advice > on the whole. I appreciate the advice, but in the end the spec still says "should not", lists it in the "obsolete, but conforming" section, and points out it will produce an error. So, from that point of view, we are almost where we were seven days ago. >> Furthermore, the spec still lists @summary under "obsolete but >> conforming". > > To my reading, the warning for @summary is mentioned under "obsolete but > conforming", as a Note, with all the other warnings, but @summary is not > labeled "obsolete". It is listed as a conforming attribute (with some > guidelines for proper use). So I would say summary is "mentioned" rather > than "listed" in that section. So why is it "mentioned" then? BR, Julian
Received on Thursday, 6 August 2009 17:08:07 UTC