- From: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>
- Date: Fri, 5 Jun 2009 15:05:39 -0700
- To: Shelley Powers <shelleyp@burningbird.net>
- Cc: John Foliot <jfoliot@stanford.edu>, public-html@w3.org
On Fri, Jun 5, 2009 at 2:42 PM, Shelley Powers <shelleyp@burningbird.net> wrote: >> The argument that I hear most often is that on the pages where >> @summary *is* used, it has not been used correctly. For example, as I >> understood it, that was the argument made in [1]. > > But then, one could say we need to eliminate table then, because I've never > seen anything used more inappropriately than table. The difference is that there is a counter proposal for @summary. As far as I know, no credible proposal has been made to replace <table>. > Like I said, I'm not an accessibility person. But as a person who has worked > with the web 15 years, I have a hard time understanding the level of angst > associated with this one particular attribute. I agree, both from the people that want to remove it and the people that want to keep it. > I don't mean that in an > offensive manner -- I just don't understand this drive for some form of > perfection with something that is fairly obvious will take time and > education before decent propagation and good usage is met. You mean more education for @summary is what's needed? > I asked in the IRC, what are alternatives, and what was a little > uncomfortable was that the folks who really want this attribute gone, really > have no alternative solution in mind. Well, other than smoosh it into > caption, which is bad mistake, and a bad design decision (you don't want to > start redefining the context and meaning of existing elements). Why not? Especially if the change in semantic is such that compatibility with existing content is still maintained. / Jonas
Received on Friday, 5 June 2009 22:06:32 UTC