Re: Summary of Thursday's IRC conversation about @summary

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