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

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

From: Simon Pieters <simonp@opera.com>
Date: Thu, 25 Jun 2009 03:05:06 +0200
To: "Henri Sivonen" <hsivonen@iki.fi>, "John Foliot" <jfoliot@stanford.edu>
Cc: "'Jonas Sicking'" <jonas@sicking.cc>, "'David Singer'" <singer@apple.com>, public-html@w3.org
Message-ID: <op.uv12mspiidj3kv@simon-pieterss-macbook.local>
On Mon, 08 Jun 2009 09:49:19 +0200, Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@iki.fi> wrote:

>> The specific functionality it
>> seeks to address it delivers in spades: as the PF WG noted, "Summary
>> serves a need, and serves it well. It is familiar to users. It is
>> supported in browsers. It is properly utilized on many web sites which
>> strive to be accessible."
> What's the "serves it well" conclusion based on? The evidence at  
> http://philip.html5.org/data/table-summary-values-dotbot.html  doesn't  
> appear to support the conclusion at all.
>  From the evidence, it seems that:
>   1) @summary mostly contains bogus data
>   2) when it does contain non-bogus data, the data it contains is short  
> and caption-like and not of the kind shown in the example I quoted from  
> your email above.

I looked through the list, and found just *one* that is somewhat of that  
kind (and is not a layout table), which is:

"A table with two columns listing title, author, date, source, subject  
headings and comments for selected newspaper articles"

Although the table seems simple enough to not actually need the summary.  
The table can even be linearized without information loss.

Simon Pieters
Opera Software
Received on Thursday, 25 June 2009 01:06:07 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 16:25:32 UTC