- From: Gregory J. Rosmaita <oedipus@hicom.net>
- Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2007 13:34:19 -0400
- To: joshue.oconnor@cfit.ie, public-html@w3.org
welcome joshue! i have created a wiki page on the summary attribute topic, to which i will add your email (and laura's reply) - there was a suggestion to make HTML4.x's summary attribute and XHTML2' summary element synonomous - summary as element would be preferred, according to this line of reasoning, but summary as an attribute would be a backwards-compatible fall-back... the HTML/SummaryForTABLE page is located at: http://esw.w3.org/topic/HTML/SummaryForTABLE for the record, i am in favor of retaining the summary attribute for TABLE, gregory. ---------------------------------------------------------- ACCOUNTABILITY, n. The mother of caution. -- Ambrose Bierce, The Devil's Dictionary ---------------------------------------------------------- Gregory J. Rosmaita, oedipus@hicom.net Camera Obscura: http://www.hicom.net/~oedipus/ Read 'Em & Speak: http://www.hicom.net/~oedipus/books/ UBATS-United Advocates for Talking Signs: http://ubats.org ---------------------------------------------------------- ---------- Original Message ----------- From: Joshue O Connor <joshue.oconnor@cfit.ie> To: public-html@w3.org Sent: Wed, 13 Jun 2007 17:24:55 +0100 Subject: Re: retention of summary attribute for TABLE element > Hi all, > > I have just joined the list, and I gotta start somewhere, so > here goes :-) > > The summary attribute is also something that many screen reader users > are used to encountering when they come across a table, to > change this without any _good_ reason may not be a good idea. It > is a feature that provides useful information to the screen > reader user and any equivalent that is being suggested to change > this, whether to improve on the quality of information that can > be revealed to the user agent, or make it easier for authors, > must be sound. > > James wrote: > > according to [1] @summary is > > present on about 2.5% of tables, I would expect it to be unhelpful on > > many of those > > That may be true, but I guess thats a qualitative issue. Such as > how useful a summary of the tables purpose and content, it is. > IMO @summary is still important to the small percentage of users > who need that information. Never mind the issue of UA support > for any future *improvements* that may be conjured up. > > Is there any consensus on what @summary would be replaced with > if it were to be deprecated? > > Josh ------- End of Original Message -------
Received on Wednesday, 13 June 2007 17:34:30 UTC