Re: summary attribute compromise proposal

Sam Ruby wrote:
> 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".

I don't think that citing RFC 2119 is helpful here :-) Here's my 

--- snip ---
6. Guidance in the use of these Imperatives

    Imperatives of the type defined in this memo must be used with care
    and sparingly.  In particular, they MUST only be used where it is
    actually required for interoperation or to limit behavior which has
    potential for causing harm (e.g., limiting retransmisssions)  For
    example, they must not be used to try to impose a particular method
    on implementors where the method is not required for
--- snip ---

BR, Julian

Received on Thursday, 6 August 2009 12:18:34 UTC