On Tue, Jul 7, 2009 at 2:04 PM, Joshue O Connor<joshue.oconnor@cfit.ie> wrote: > Just for the record, please note that the contents of the @summary were > written by a client and not by Gez himself. So this example doesn't > represent best practice of the use of @summary. That said, this was a client who cared enough to (a) Write an appropriate summary at all (b) Hire Gez, instead of a generic HTML resource (c) Do user testing (If I Recall Correctly) I therefore think this is still about the best that we could expect from institutional sites -- even those under legal mandates. So if there is an algorithm that can do better, it makes sense to specify that instead. (Then there are other questions -- should that automated result be placed in the @summary attribute, or something else? Should it override existing @summary, which may or may not be a human-written good example?) -jJReceived on Tuesday, 7 July 2009 18:23:26 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 7 July 2009 18:23:26 GMT