W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > August 2009

Re: summary attribute compromise proposal

From: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
Date: Tue, 04 Aug 2009 13:39:40 -0700
Cc: HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>
Message-id: <CC4E6217-71F3-4617-BCAF-8C36621E2CC0@apple.com>
To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>

On Aug 4, 2009, at 1:36 PM, Julian Reschke wrote:

> Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
>> On Aug 4, 2009, at 1:29 PM, Julian Reschke wrote:
>>>> ...
>>>>> 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.
>>>> Do you think it's acceptable as part of a compromise, even if  
>>>> you're not sure it's ideal?
>>>> ...
>>> No, not really, as the behavior of validators really is a key  
>>> question here (next to the (current) guidance not to use it).
>> What do you think is the proper validator behavior on encountering  
>> summary="" - keeping in mind that providing no guidance at all to  
>> authors is likely to be unacceptable to many people?
> If by summary="" you mean an *empty* attribute, then yes, I think  
> that should generate a warning. Another case for a warning might be  
> summary text that is repeated in the table caption.

No, I mean a summary attribute being present at all, regardless of its  
value. What do you think should be the validator behavior for that case?

Received on Tuesday, 4 August 2009 20:40:20 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Saturday, 9 October 2021 18:44:53 UTC