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

Re: Summary of Thursday's IRC conversation about @summary

From: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>
Date: Fri, 5 Jun 2009 15:05:39 -0700
Message-ID: <63df84f0906051505l2e4579e0i6db7624dc701bf73@mail.gmail.com>
To: Shelley Powers <shelleyp@burningbird.net>
Cc: John Foliot <jfoliot@stanford.edu>, public-html@w3.org
On Fri, Jun 5, 2009 at 2:42 PM, Shelley Powers <shelleyp@burningbird.net> wrote:
>> The argument that I hear most often is that on the pages where
>> @summary *is* used, it has not been used correctly. For example, as I
>> understood it, that was the argument made in [1].
>
> But then, one could say we need to eliminate table then, because I've never
> seen anything used more inappropriately than table.

The difference is that there is a counter proposal for @summary.

As far as I know, no credible proposal has been made to replace <table>.

> Like I said, I'm not an accessibility person. But as a person who has worked
> with the web 15 years, I have a hard time understanding the level of angst
> associated with this one particular attribute.

I agree, both from the people that want to remove it and the people
that want to keep it.

> I don't mean that in an
> offensive manner -- I just don't understand this drive for some form of
> perfection with something that is fairly obvious will take time and
> education before decent propagation and good usage is met.

You mean more education for @summary is what's needed?

> I asked in the IRC, what are alternatives, and what was a little
> uncomfortable was that the folks who really want this attribute gone, really
> have no alternative solution in mind. Well, other than smoosh it into
> caption, which is bad mistake, and a bad design decision (you don't want to
> start redefining the context and meaning of existing elements).

Why not? Especially if the change in semantic is such that
compatibility with existing content is still maintained.

/ Jonas
Received on Friday, 5 June 2009 22:06:32 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 9 May 2012 00:16:38 GMT