Re: summary="" in HTML5 ISSUE-32

Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
> Category C was specifically about information that can *not* be learned
> by looking at the table, or anywhere else; it is found only in summary.
> That was my definition of Category C, which you said could be put in
> summary. Quoting from earlier emails:
> 
>>> C) Additional information not found in the table at all, but relating to
>>> its contents.
>>
>> @summary could do this.
> 
> This was in contrast to categories A and B, which were descriptions of
> the table's structure to aid navigation, and summaries of the table's
> conclusions, so C is explicitly not either of those.
> 
> So if such information is put in summary, it would not be equivalent. It
> would be providing information to non-visual users that cannot be
> learned from seeing the table. 

I don't really understand where you are going with this. That to me is
the point of the attribute in the first place and I have repeatedly
stated my stance on this issue.

>It seems that summary is used at least
> sometimes to convey such information. 

Yes, and this is a problem because..?

> Would you agree that summary
> providing additional information (not information about table structure,
> or a summary of the table's conclusions, but brand new info that is not
> in the table at all) violates equivalence?

Ahh, I see. Not at all. I actually find this line of reasoning
distasteful. Why? Because if any ideal of equivalence could result in
penalizing people with disabilities because a technology serves their
needs - the implication being that the sighted person is in some way
discriminated against because they are 'denied' some meta data
specifically of use to another group, c'mon. That is a perverse notion
of equivalence that has dangerous implications when abstracted out into
practice.