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

Re: Request for group input on ISSUE-83 (figure and details captions)

From: Shelley Powers <shelley.just@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 24 Jan 2010 09:25:52 -0600
Message-ID: <643cc0271001240725l6c369460u8d5f61155b59bd49@mail.gmail.com>
To: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
Cc: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>, public-html <public-html@w3.org>
On Sat, Jan 23, 2010 at 11:13 PM, Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com> wrote:
>
> On Jan 23, 2010, at 8:58 PM, Ian Hickson wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 20 Jan 2010, Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> So it sounds like no one else has strong feelings. I therefore suggest
>>> that Ian should implement the fcaption/dlabel Change Proposal:
>>> http://esw.w3.org/topic/HTML/ChangeProposals/DdDtFcaptionDlabel
>>>
>>> I think it would be fine to pick either of <fcaption> or <figcaption>,
>>> and either of <dlabel> or <dsummary>. Once that change is made, the
>>> Chairs will post a Call for Consensus to close this issue by amicable
>>> resolution.
>>
>> <figcaption> seems reasonable, but can't we use <summary> instead of
>> <dsummary>? The argument that it would be confusing because of summary=""
>> doesn't seem to really hold water given that authors have no problems with
>> <title> and title="", <style> and style="", <span> and span="", or <cite>
>> and cite="", and nobody has particularly complained about us adding
>> <label> and label="" or <form> and form="" in HTML5. In fact the best
>> example may be <abbr> and abbr="", which haven't caused anyone any
>> confusion that I'm aware of, where the meaning is subtly different in
>> almost exactly the same way as proposed here, and where the attribute is
>> similarly considered by many to be a feature that should be removed from
>> the language anyway.
>
> That sounds pretty convincing to me, I don't know of anyone being seriously confused by the cases above. And I agree your example with plain <summary> reads nicely. Shelley, are you willing to reconsider your objection on this point? Does anyone else have an opinion one way or the other?
>

No, I'm not.

As Laura mentioned in another email, creating a summary element for
table has been considered an option to replace the summary attribute.

I'll also note that in the use cases given, where element and
attribute share name, they also share same purpose.

The summary attribute provides accessibility information specifically
for user agents that assist the visually impaired. The summary element
in details is nothing more than a caption for a drop down. There is no
shared purpose.

There are other options, why must I continue to defend my view when
there other perfectly good options?


>
> (Side note:
>
>> ...than it would be if we were to use <dsummary> -- the only elements
>> where HTML has initial-word as an element naming pattern are <iframe>,
>> whose etymology I could not determine,
>
> I believe it stands for "inline frame".)
>
>
>> I would hate to go through the heavy-weight process to decide on a single
>> letter in an element name, but I would also hate to pick a suboptimal
>> element name purely because of what, IMHO, is a weak objection.
>
> Since this is essentially a bikeshed issue, then if we truly can't agree, one thing we could do is take it to a poll. I agree that it would be unfortunate to invoke the heavy-weight process for a single letter.
>
>

This isn't about a letter -- this is about the group working as a
team, as compared to the editor making unilateral decisions.

There are other options that Ian can use. There are no problems with
him using these other options. We could be done, if he would just
consider using other options. And frankly, this shouldn't have been
his decision to make.

Regardless, Ian has not provided a solid rationale for using summary.
I believe that I have.

> Regards,
> Maciej
>
>

Shelley
Received on Sunday, 24 January 2010 15:26:25 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 29 September 2014 09:39:13 UTC