- From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Date: Tue, 04 Aug 2009 21:44:29 +0200
- To: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
- CC: HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>
Maciej Stachowiak wrote: > ... > To be really clear, the purpose of the warning is to give authors the > chance to *consider* other approaches, not to outright rule out summary. > It wouldn't say "don't use summary", it would say something like "if > you're using summary, you may want to consider these issues and these > alternate approaches...". So an author could see the warning and decide > they have good reason to use summary="" anyway. > ... So a good reason would be that @summary is used in exactly the way it was specified? "This attribute provides a summary of the table's purpose and structure for user agents rendering to non-visual media such as speech and Braille." (HTML4) (potentially clarified) The reason why I ask is the fact that authors do strange things to get rid of warnings, including doing wrong things (like blindly adding @alt="") > I think this is appropriate, because HTML4 did not have any other > recommended techniques for table descriptions, so the warning will give > authors a good chance to consider other approaches. > > It's also similar in spirit to validator.nu's "image report" feature, > which will help you ensure that your use of images is accessible but > without commanding one specific way to do it. > ... I agree it's good to make sure @summary is used for what it's there; I'm not yet convinced that an unconditional validator warning is the right way to get there, though. BR, Julian
Received on Tuesday, 4 August 2009 19:45:18 UTC