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

Re: Draft text for summary attribute definition

From: Robert J Burns <rob@robburns.com>
Date: Sat, 28 Feb 2009 17:11:38 -0500
Cc: Leif Halvard Silli <lhs@malform.no>, Steven Faulkner <faulkner.steve@gmail.com>, W3C WAI-XTECH <wai-xtech@w3.org>, Janina Sajka <janina@rednote.net>, Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>, Gez Lemon <gez.lemon@gmail.com>
Message-Id: <9942FA98-94FD-41A3-9795-D503F56882A6@robburns.com>
To: HTMLWG WG <public-html@w3.org>

On Feb 28, 2009, at 4:47 PM, Robert J Burns wrote:

> I've certainly tried to address authors in the text I wrote  
> (actually some minor changes to Steve's original text; mine is not  
> version B and his version A). I do feel more should be said and as  
> Steve acknowledged any version requires some easy to follow examples.

That should have read mine _IS_ version B and Steve's is version A.

<http://esw.w3.org/topic/HTML/SummaryForTABLE/SummarySpecification?action=show#head-f7ae874dfb50ef6dfa17e222128fd04365ab691c 
 >

Leif's version adds something norms about 'caption' which we should  
clarify alongside summary.

The substantive differences between version A and version B is that  
version B follows WCAG in recommending summary="" for layout tables  
and also directs authors to include a caption within 'summary' if the  
author elects to omit a caption entirely (though prohibiting the use  
of 'summary' for caption when the author includes 'caption' content).  
The idea here is that non-visual users have a strong need for a  
caption even though captions can often be omitted due to context for  
visual users.

I think these issues are the types of things the WG should discuss and  
not whether HTML should be serving visually or cognitively impaired  
users.

Take care,
Rob
Received on Saturday, 28 February 2009 22:12:32 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 9 May 2012 00:16:32 GMT