W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > February 2010

(unknown charset) Re: Feedback on using <details> as a replacement of summary="..."

From: (unknown charset) Leif Halvard Silli <xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no>
Date: Thu, 18 Feb 2010 16:44:50 +0100
To: (unknown charset) Shelley Powers <shelleypowers@burningbird.net>
Cc: (unknown charset) Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@iki.fi>, "public-html@w3.org WG" <public-html@w3.org>
Message-ID: <20100218164450778841.6769347c@xn--mlform-iua.no>
Shelley Powers, Thu, 18 Feb 2010 07:39:08 -0600:
  [...]
> I just can't think of anything more cluttering than a button/triangle 
> with label in a table that I shouldn't push. I notice, though, that 
> another aspect of the proposal is that details not be visible by 
> default in the table? But the whole concept of the element is that by 
> default the label part should be visible. This is going to play all 
> sorts of havoc with the web authoring community.

If you don't have a <button>/<summary> inside, then it won't be 
visible. Though, I see that the proposal suggests that "If there is no 
child button element, the user agent SHOULD render a small button which 
matches the user interface of the user agent". 

> I do agree in the proposal that there is confusion about the use of 
> summary, for an element of details, as compared to summary as table 
> attribute. However, I was the only person who raised an objection on 
> this name.

I saw that Maciej said the same thing. But, no you were not. I think 
that <summary> is a silly name indeed. And I told so on the list. 
Summary would have been a nice name to use instead of <details>. But 
not as a name for the details caption.

> I would not have removed my own objection if I had seen 
> support for this objection from other members of the HTML WG team.

I'm sorry that I looked away from the list for second ...  The current 
solution has never had my support.
-- 
leif halvard sili
Received on Thursday, 18 February 2010 15:45:24 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 9 May 2012 00:17:02 GMT