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

Re: ACTION-128: Draft @summary voting text in conjunction with PF

From: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
Date: Mon, 6 Jul 2009 23:37:09 +0000 (UTC)
To: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
Cc: public-html@w3.org, wai-xtech@w3.org
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.62.0907062331560.1053@hixie.dreamhostps.com>
On Mon, 6 Jul 2009, Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
> I think highlighting effective alternatives plus optional validator 
> warnings will reduce the incidence of incorrect use.

So would you agree to a proposal wherein the spec:

 * Gave a long list of possible ways to include explanatory text for 
   tables (e.g. in <details>, in prose, in <caption>),

 * Gave a couple of examples of explanatory text,

 * Made the summary="" attribute non-conforming but made it a down-played
   error, meaning it would get a more friendly treatment in validators 
   than a regular unknown attribute,

 * Explicitly said that summary="" was obsolete but pointed to a section 
   on how to give examples, and

 * Encouraged authors (with a "should") to include explanatory text for 
   tables that met certain criteria of complexity.

...? Or do you think we should actually make summary="" conforming, as 
opposed to a down-played error?

Ian Hickson               U+1047E                )\._.,--....,'``.    fL
http://ln.hixie.ch/       U+263A                /,   _.. \   _\  ;`._ ,.
Things that are impossible just take longer.   `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
Received on Monday, 6 July 2009 23:37:47 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Thursday, 29 October 2015 10:15:47 UTC