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

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

From: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 2010 17:01:58 -0800
Message-ID: <63df84f1001251701w7db63b6yf33eac43e5b67ec8@mail.gmail.com>
To: Leif Halvard Silli <xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no>
Cc: public-html <public-html@w3.org>, public-html-a11y@w3.org
On Mon, Jan 25, 2010 at 9:11 AM, Leif Halvard Silli
<xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no> wrote:
> Shelley Powers, Sun, 24 Jan 2010 21:46:42 -0600:
>> 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>.
>
> There are _two_ conditions that *could* make <summary> work:
>
> (1) It is used for both <figure> and <details>
> (2) One solves the problem of the proposed <summary> element for
>    <table> simultaneously.

Are the problems <summary> for <table> listed somewhere, such that
someone can check if the new <summary> solves them.

Also wondering if aria-describedby already solves these problems. So
that now that aria-describedby is part of HTML5 we no longer need
<summary> for <table>

/ Jonas
Received on Tuesday, 26 January 2010 01:02:52 GMT

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