- 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