- From: Shelley Powers <shelleypowers@burningbird.net>
- Date: Fri, 26 Feb 2010 07:41:02 -0600
- To: Joshue O Connor <joshue.oconnor@cfit.ie>
- CC: Laura Carlson <laura.lee.carlson@gmail.com>, Gez Lemon <g.lemon@webprofession.com>, "Gregory J. Rosmaita" <oedipus@hicom.net>, public-html-a11y@w3.org
Joshue O Connor wrote: > Hi Laura, > >> The danger is *replacing* the attribute with a new element is that it >> can harm the user group the attribute was trying to help. >> >> A new element could possibly be considered in *addition* to retaining >> the attribute. But that would be a different change proposal. >> > > Maybe I missed something, but that it so some degree what I thought was > going on. I am in favour of keeping @summary as a valid attribute but > also adding a /better/ element. For me, this would be a win-win. > @summary is still legal but the markup provides a way to serve other > user groups, has great semantic ability yada yada > > Cheers > > Josh > > > Actually, I'm not in favor of adding a new element, because no one has shown what problem this new element is supposed to be solving. What are the use cases for the new element? We keep talking about elements and attributes, when we need to talk about what part of the community is not being served with what we have now (if summary were still conforming, and not surrounded by odd and strange warning messages)? Shelley
Received on Friday, 26 February 2010 13:41:37 UTC