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

Re: Use and abuse of @summary

From: Leif Halvard Silli <lhs@malform.no>
Date: Mon, 23 Feb 2009 15:48:15 +0100
Message-ID: <49A2B72F.1000508@malform.no>
To: "Patrick H. Lauke" <redux@splintered.co.uk>
CC: HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>, W3C WAI Protocols & Formats <w3c-wai-pf@w3.org>, wai-liaison@w3.org
Patrick H. Lauke 2009-02-23 15.03:
> On Mon, Feb 23, 2009 at 12:45 PM, James Graham <jgraham@opera.com> wrote:
> 
>> Patrick H. Lauke wrote:

>>> [...] Personally, I disagree with this technique's particular
>>> suggested use of summary for simple tables...

>> For example it is unclear that @summary will be needed to satisfy 1.3.1 at
>> all since information about the structure of the data is available through
>> the table cell-headers relationships hence satisfying the "relationships
>> [...] can be programmatically determined" part of the clause.
> 
> Yup, that's my interpretation as well - unless the structure really
> does require further explanation because it's so complex and/or
> non-obvious, at which point I'd posit that the problem is more with
> the table itself and it presenting too much data. Don't get me wrong,
> I would want authors to be able to use @summary in that way if they
> feel that it's needed...but wouldn't say that that's the only valid
> use for it.

So your message is that

a) H73 doesn't give the advice you would have given, when it comes 
to simple tables.
b) But those that find the H73-advice correct for simple tables as 
well, should have the opportunity to follow it.
c) But still, your advice is that @summary on simple tables can be 
useful, as long as one doesn't limit oneselves to desrbiing te 
pure table structure (but rather use it e.g. like @alt?)

?
-- 
leif halvard silli
Received on Monday, 23 February 2009 14:49:00 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 29 September 2014 09:39:01 UTC