- From: Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@MIT.EDU>
- Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2009 10:59:24 -0400
- To: joshue.oconnor@cfit.ie
- CC: HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>, Gez Lemon <gez.lemon@gmail.com>, Steve Faulkner <sfaulkner@paciellogroup.com>, "Gregory J. Rosmaita" <oedipus@hicom.net>, W3C WAI-XTECH <wai-xtech@w3.org>, www-archive <www-archive@w3.org>, Janina Sajka <janina@rednote.net>, Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>, Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
Joshue O Connor wrote: > 4) Finally it should be appraised just for what it is - a mechanism for > describing the relationships between data cells in complex tables that > is useful for blind and VIP and we need to explicitly keep it as such. One issue here, from my point of view, is that the attribute name is a serious mismatch for that function.... which leads to major author confusion as to what should go in this attribute. I know if I were authoring a web page and had to put in an @summary for some reason (e.g. mandate from on high), I'd have no idea what to do with it. The name would mislead me, and even if I went and read the spec I'd still have no idea what to put in it. Would it make sense to add a datastructure attribute (or some other more suitable name), require UAs to look for the relationships between data cells in that attribute and then in @summary in that order, and make use of @summary a validator warning or some such? And make sure that the spec has some examples of tables and corresponding @datastructure values. -Boris
Received on Wednesday, 10 June 2009 15:04:56 UTC