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

Re: summary="" in HTML5 ISSUE-32

From: Joshue O Connor <joshue.oconnor@cfit.ie>
Date: Fri, 27 Feb 2009 08:11:19 +0000
Message-ID: <49A7A027.8070802@cfit.ie>
To: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
Cc: David Poehlman <poehlman1@comcast.net>, Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>, Robert J Burns <rob@robburns.com>, Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>, "Gregory J. Rosmaita" <oedipus@hicom.net>, Leif Halvard Silli <lhs@malform.no>, James Graham <jgraham@opera.com>, Steve Axthelm <steveax@pobox.com>, Steven Faulkner <faulkner.steve@gmail.com>, Simon Pieters <simonp@opera.com>, HTMLWG <public-html@w3.org>, wai-xtech@w3.org, wai-liaison@w3.org, janina@rednote.net, Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>, Matt Morgan-May <mattmay@adobe.com>, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, W3C WAI Protocols & Formats <w3c-wai-pf@w3.org>
Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
> Category C was specifically about information that can *not* be learned
> by looking at the table, or anywhere else; it is found only in summary.
> That was my definition of Category C, which you said could be put in
> summary. Quoting from earlier emails:
>>> C) Additional information not found in the table at all, but relating to
>>> its contents.
>> @summary could do this.
> This was in contrast to categories A and B, which were descriptions of
> the table's structure to aid navigation, and summaries of the table's
> conclusions, so C is explicitly not either of those.
> So if such information is put in summary, it would not be equivalent. It
> would be providing information to non-visual users that cannot be
> learned from seeing the table. 

I don't really understand where you are going with this. That to me is
the point of the attribute in the first place and I have repeatedly
stated my stance on this issue.

>It seems that summary is used at least
> sometimes to convey such information. 

Yes, and this is a problem because..?

> Would you agree that summary
> providing additional information (not information about table structure,
> or a summary of the table's conclusions, but brand new info that is not
> in the table at all) violates equivalence?

Ahh, I see. Not at all. I actually find this line of reasoning
distasteful. Why? Because if any ideal of equivalence could result in
penalizing people with disabilities because a technology serves their
needs - the implication being that the sighted person is in some way
discriminated against because they are 'denied' some meta data
specifically of use to another group, c'mon. That is a perverse notion
of equivalence that has dangerous implications when abstracted out into
Received on Friday, 27 February 2009 08:12:36 UTC

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