- From: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
- Date: Thu, 26 Feb 2009 11:24:50 -0800
- To: Philip TAYLOR <P.Taylor@Rhul.Ac.Uk>
- 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>
On Feb 26, 2009, at 11:16 AM, Philip TAYLOR wrote: > [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 ? I believe that Joshue specifically suggested this, since he said such information could be put in the summary attribute. But it may be that I did not communicate the definition of Category C clearly to him, or that I misunderstood his response. It also seems that below you're also arguing that putting such information in summary is OK: > 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 think this would be a question of good practice, not conformance, because I am dubious about conformance criteria that are subjective and not machine-checkable. However, the kinds of information that people put in there or might put in there, should inform our design of HTML5. > 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. I think that would also be a poor practice; such additional information should go in title, a figure caption, or the content around the image. I believe putting information that is additional rather than equivalent in alt would be nonconforming per the current draft regarding alt text. Regards, Maciej
Received on Thursday, 26 February 2009 19:25:37 UTC