On Mon, 6 Jul 2009, Maciej Stachowiak wrote: > > I think highlighting effective alternatives plus optional validator > warnings will reduce the incidence of incorrect use. So would you agree to a proposal wherein the spec: * Gave a long list of possible ways to include explanatory text for tables (e.g. in <details>, in prose, in <caption>), * Gave a couple of examples of explanatory text, * Made the summary="" attribute non-conforming but made it a down-played error, meaning it would get a more friendly treatment in validators than a regular unknown attribute, * Explicitly said that summary="" was obsolete but pointed to a section on how to give examples, and * Encouraged authors (with a "should") to include explanatory text for tables that met certain criteria of complexity. ...? Or do you think we should actually make summary="" conforming, as opposed to a down-played error? -- Ian Hickson U+1047E )\._.,--....,'``. fL http://ln.hixie.ch/ U+263A /, _.. \ _\ ;`._ ,. Things that are impossible just take longer. `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'Received on Monday, 6 July 2009 23:37:45 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:48:49 GMT