- From: Gregory J. Rosmaita <oedipus@hicom.net>
- Date: Thu, 25 Feb 2010 17:36:17 +0000
- To: public-html-a11y@w3.org
aloha! i'm sending this to the list because these are the points i made at today's HTML A11y TF telecon, but which i didn't minute as i can't type and talk and chew gum at the same time (i know, next time, lose the gum) when it came to the first question of the details versus summary survey, i could not select an option because i support replacing the summary attribute with a summary element, and i would have liked the first question of this survey to have been a choice between summary as an attribute and summary as an element; if authors and developers are used to the concept of using the summary attribute for the TABLE element in HTML4, why not simply change summary from an attribute to an element (regardless of what that element is named)? as an element, summary provides those who have actually used the summary attribute, with capabilities which were not possible when summary was an attribute; one of the internationalization issues authors have faced when using the summary attribute is how to provide multi-lingual versions of information which is limited to an attribute value, without the possibility of programmatically indicating natural language switches, through the use of the lang attribute; if authors are as ignorant of the HTML4 attribute summary as some have claimed, then they won't be confused by an HTML5 element named summary which is the child of CAPTION; bottom line: in order for a summarization of a table's contents to be of real utility, the summary's delivery mechanism needs to be able to support "rich content" -- that is, markup, such as use of the lang attribute to programatically indicate a natural language switch where multi-lingual versions of the summarizing information is required); ideally, such information should, therefore, be contained in an element, to ensure that an author can use standard markup to annotate/describe the table (such as ABBR, DFN, etc.), although i would NOT allow anchors or other interactive elements to be used in the summary/summarization element; whatever the summary element's name, it should be a child of CAPTION, and should be considered a strong "hint" by the author, which is NOT rendered by default, thereby making it possible for multiple non-mutually exclusive alternative renderings of the summary's contents through user agent configuration; any "button" type mechanism could be one option offered by a user agent, just as user agents should allow users to flag FORM controls without explicit "submit" mechanisms and provide a UA user interface control for any FORM control that lacks an explicit "submit" mechanism; proposed next steps: the task force needs to: 1. ascertain the position of working group members on summary as an attribute versus summary as an element; 2. if the task force agrees on a summarizing element, then the various proposals for the specific name and mechanics of the summarization element would be the next deliverable of the task force in regards the TF's feedback on the summary 1ssue; 3. i'm not so opposed to DETAILS as an element name, but wonder if the change in nomenclature is necessary -- what authors and users have been asking for is the ability to use a limited set of markup tags within the summarizing text, so as to indicate natural language switches, the expansion for an abbreviation/abbreviated form, emphasis markers, but NO interactive elements my 2 cents, american, gregory. ------------------------------------------------------------- ADVICE, n. The smallest common coin. -- Ambrose Bierce, The Devil's Dictionary ------------------------------------------------------------- Gregory J. Rosmaita, oedipus@hicom.net Camera Obscura: http://www.hicom.net/~oedipus/index.html -------------------------------------------------------------
Received on Thursday, 25 February 2010 17:36:45 UTC