- From: Philip TAYLOR <P.Taylor@Rhul.Ac.Uk>
- Date: Thu, 26 Feb 2009 19:16:31 +0000
- To: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
- CC: joshue.oconnor@cfit.ie, HTMLWG <public-html@w3.org>, wai-xtech@w3.org, wai-liaison@w3.org, W3C WAI Protocols & Formats <w3c-wai-pf@w3.org>
[The CC list was ridiculous; I've left in the groups, but removed all individuals apart from Maciej and Joshue] Maciej Stachowiak wrote: > So if such information is put in summary, it would not be equivalent. It > would be providing information to non-visual users that cannot be > learned from seeing the table. It seems that summary is used at least > sometimes to convey such information. Would you agree that summary > providing additional information (not information about table structure, > or a summary of the table's conclusions, but brand new info that is not > in the table at all) violates equivalence? But is anyone suggesting that "additional information (not information about table structure, or a summary of the table's conclusions, but brand new info that is not in the table at all" should be put into the contents of summary attribute ? My reading of Joshue's message is that he most certainly is not : he is proposing that a /summary/ of the table be put into the contents of the summary attribute, which seems eminently reasonable to me. Even if an author /were/ to put "additional information <etc>" into the contents of the summary attribute, would you then want to classify the document as non- conforming ? I hope not, in exactly the same way that I hope you would not want to class as non-conforming a document that put "additional information <etc>" into the contents of an ALT attribute that could not be found in the visual realisation of the image itself. Philip TAYLOR
Received on Thursday, 26 February 2009 19:17:22 UTC