- From: Martin Kliehm <martin.kliehm@namics.com>
- Date: Thu, 17 Dec 2009 20:25:18 +0100
- To: Leif Halvard Silli <xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no>
- Cc: Cynthia Shelly <cyns@microsoft.com>, HTML Accessibility Task Force <public-html-a11y@w3.org>
On 17.12.2009, at 20:00, Leif Halvard Silli wrote: > Martin Kliehm, Thu, 17 Dec 2009 18:08:10 +0100: >> So it seems a main objection is that @summary metadata is hidden. It >> struck me that it is the same with the @datetime attribute of <ins> >> and <del> elements. The difference is that there's also the <time> >> element in case you prefer datetime to be visible. >> >> So for consistency, why don't we keep @summary which is also >> backwards compatible, and add something redundant like a <summary> >> element for people who want to make it visible or change the >> visibility using CSS? Thus everybody should be happy. > > This is more or less exactly what I mentioned on IRC[1]. Yes, thanks for the inspiration. ;-) I believe since nobody objects @datetime and <time> in its two manifestations, using it as an analogy may help to get the point through. > My idea is to join <summary> with Ian's current proposal to allow > <caption> to contain more than a caption is currently allowed. Thus > make <summary> a container for this additional info. I understand the rationale, but do you think it is clear for authors where the difference is between <caption> and <summary> if one is contained within the other? They both suggest something similar. Cheers, Martin
Received on Thursday, 17 December 2009 19:25:09 UTC