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

Re: table-summary argument

From: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
Date: Tue, 03 Feb 2009 19:05:00 -0500
Message-ID: <4988DBAC.6030104@intertwingly.net>
To: Larry Masinter <masinter@adobe.com>
CC: HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>, Matt Morgan-May <mattmay@adobe.com>

Larry Masinter wrote:
> I wrote:
>>> The proposal is to remove an accessibility-related attribute, without
>>> offering a replacement for its use, with no explanation except they 
>>> looked at the Google index and figured they could axe it. 
> to which Sam replied:
>> That seems to be misrepresenting the position that has resulted in the 
>> summary attribute not being in the HTML5 draft.

Wasn't me; but I did, in fact, endorse the statement.

> I was adding a new point:  that table@summary is implemented
> in a popular authoring tool, some of whose users would complain
> if it was removed.


>> Larry: it might be useful to write up a short statement (ideally a 
>> balanced one that covers both positions, if that's humanly possible) to 
>> be included in the draft for now?
> This might be moot depending on the result of the poll on
> the topic, but here goes:
> table@summary: "A survey of existing web content showed that this
> attribute was rarely used, and, when it was, it was frequently
> misused, leading to the conclusion that it should be removed from
> HTML 5.  On the other hand, the attribute has been in HTML for
> since HTML 4, there are some sites that use it correctly, and
> the WAI community has recommended its continued inclusion 
> as a best practice in the hopes of increasing correct
> deployment. This issue is not yet decided."

Doesn't appear to include the point above, but other than that looks OK 
to me.  Matt Morgan-May, how does this sound to you?

> I think the general policy issue I s whether HTML5 should
> recommend as best practice something that isn't exactly
> current practice. Currently the document rarely does so
> except in a few notable places, primarily where new
> features have been added.
> I think that's at the root of this issue.

Could very well be.

> Larry

- Sam Ruby
Received on Wednesday, 4 February 2009 00:05:32 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Thursday, 29 October 2015 10:15:42 UTC