- 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
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