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 21:46:42 -0600
Message-ID: <643cc0271001241946t298a6bfah37affba932bb36c6@mail.gmail.com>
To: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
Cc: Leif Halvard Silli <xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no>, Aryeh Gregor <Simetrical+w3c@gmail.com>, Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>, public-html <public-html@w3.org>, Bruce Lawson <brucel@opera.com>, Laura Carlson <laura.lee.carlson@gmail.com>
On Sun, Jan 24, 2010 at 9:30 PM, Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com> wrote:
>
> On Jan 24, 2010, at 7:14 PM, Leif Halvard Silli wrote:
>
>>
>> I personally also don't find <summary>/<dsummary> a good name as a
>> <details> caption. For example consider this example from the <table>
>> section in the draft [2] (where I replaced <dt> with summary :
>>
>> <details><summary>Help</summary> [.. explanation ..]</details>
>>
>> There is no summary here?! It is just a very short label/identifier.
>> (And as well: The draft only permits phrasing content inside the
>> <details> caption - whereas <summary> invites to a full explanation - I
>> certainly don't think of a summary as any shorter than a caption - on
>> the contrary!)
>
> Examples like this make me think <dlabel> (or similar) would be better than <dsummary> or <summary>. It is true that the spec calls this portion the "summary", but the way this type of UI element is typically used, the short version is a label for the longer contents, not a summary of them. This is pretty obvious with the screenshot examples in the spec: <http://dev.w3.org/html5/spec/Overview.html#the-details-element>. "General", "Name & Extension" and "Preview" are not summaries of anything, they are labels.
>

I have no objection to <dlabel>.

> Regards,
> Maciej
>
>

Shelley
Received on Monday, 25 January 2010 03:47:16 GMT

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