Re: summary attribute compromise proposal

Julian Reschke wrote:
> For instance, the spec still states:
> "The summary  attribute on table elements was suggested in earlier 
> versions of the language as a technique for providing explanatory text 
> for complex tables for users of screen readers. One of the techniques 
> described  above should be used instead."
> ...which I think is the wrong thing to do if one believes that @summary 
> *does* have a special purpose for screen readers, which none of the 
> alternatives have.

 From RFC 2119:

   SHOULD  This word, or the adjective "RECOMMENDED", mean that there
     may exist valid reasons in particular circumstances to ignore a
     particular item, but the full implications must be understood and
     carefully weighed before choosing a different course.

Perhaps this could be reinforced by adding the word "often" after the 
word "should".

- Sam Ruby

Received on Thursday, 6 August 2009 11:55:52 UTC