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

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

From: Shelley Powers <shelleypowers@burningbird.net>
Date: Thu, 18 Feb 2010 10:04:15 -0600
Message-ID: <4B7D64FF.4010205@burningbird.net>
To: Leif Halvard Silli <xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no>
CC: Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@iki.fi>, "public-html@w3.org WG" <public-html@w3.org>
Leif Halvard Silli wrote:
> 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". 
>
>   
The use of SHOULD will also play merry havoc, but the label is supposed 
to be visible. My understanding for the default stylesheet for one 
browser, at least, was that the body would be set to display: none, but 
the label part would be displayed.

>> 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.
>   

Maciej urged me to drop my objection, so I can only go by what I see. 
And I did miss your objection, too, sorry. It ended up in the other 
thread, I had missed your specific support. I shouldn't have withdrawn 
my objection. I'm sorry, Leif. I blew it.

I agree, it was not a good idea to use the same name for the element as 
for the attribute. Now there was an interesting side discussion on this: 
use a summary element in table, as an eventual replacement for the 
summary attribute. It could be non-displayed by default, but the web 
author could override and display the item.

Now, that one has an appeal, but we'd have to remove summary from 
details. But then, one issue has to do with removing details, which 
would eliminate the problem with summary, and free the summary element 
for use with table. Perhaps, though, this could be a fallback, or 
alternative proposal.


>   
>> 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.
>   

I apologized Leif.

Shelley
Received on Thursday, 18 February 2010 16:05:08 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 29 September 2014 09:39:14 UTC