W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-gl@w3.org > January to March 2001

RE: summary attribute required? history.

From: Mike Paciello <paciello@ma.ultranet.com>
Date: Mon, 5 Mar 2001 12:45:04 -0500
To: "Charles McCathieNevile" <charles@w3.org>, "Leonard R. Kasday" <kasday@acm.org>
Cc: "Al Gilman" <asgilman@iamdigex.net>, "William Loughborough" <love26@gorge.net>, <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Message-ID: <LPBBLAFOCBGBPOEHHLNGEELJDPAA.paciello@ma.ultranet.com>


>> If I did I would note that they are layout tables in the summary

... this is precisely what I do.


> -----Original Message-----
> From: w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org [mailto:w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org]On
> Behalf Of Charles McCathieNevile
> Sent: Monday, March 05, 2001 11:58 AM
> To: Leonard R. Kasday
> Cc: Al Gilman; William Loughborough; w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
> Subject: Re: summary attribute required? history.
> The words say, provide a summary (a short synopsis, precis, etc),
> and give,
> as one example of how to do t in one language, the use of HTML's summary
> attribute. I would also be looking for a summary in testing for
> triple-A, but
> in reaching for it myself I prefer to have a caption element, and possibly
> add additional information in a summary. (This is because I don't
> use layout
> tables. If I did I would note that they are layout tables in the summary).
> cheers
> Charles McCN
> On Mon, 5 Mar 2001, Leonard R. Kasday wrote:
>   Al wrote:
>   quote
>   The argument against requiring a value of the SUMMARY attribute
> per se for all
>   tables is that the SUMMARY is supplementary to the caption
> element or TITLE
>   attribute for the table.
>   unquote
>   However, WCAG 1.0 says
>   quote
>   5.5 Provide summaries for tables. [Priority 3] For example, in HTML, use
>   the "summary" attribute of the TABLE element. Techniques for
> checkpoint 5.5
>   unquote
>   That seems to say that summary is required.
>   Personally, I'd agree with Al that summary isn't always needed.  There's
>   the case Al mentioned where  title and caption might suffice.
> There's also
>   another case: where the text of the document happens to describe the
>   table.  In other words, I see summary like a longdesc: a longer
> explanation
>   that isn't always needed.
>   Anyway, the next time I'm rating a page for triple A, do I need
> to require
>   summary?  I'd look to the folks doing HTML techniques to answer this for
>   2.0... we can then issue an errata against 1.0 if necessary.
>   In the meantime, I'm going to have to go by what I see as the
> plain meaning
>   of the words and require a summary for triple A compliance even in cases
>   where I have say that it isn't really necessary.  I hope this
> gets resolved
>   before I run across this in a real case.
>   Len
Received on Monday, 5 March 2001 12:43:24 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 16 January 2018 15:33:36 UTC