- From: James Graham <jgraham@opera.com>
- Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2009 17:30:55 +0200
- To: HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>, shelley.just@gmail.com
Leif Halvard Silli wrote: > jgraham@opera.com On 09-06-10 10.38: >> Quoting Shelley Powers <shelley.just@gmail.com>: >> >>> What do you think of the summary element, as long term solution, that >>> Laura has pointed out to several folks? Other than she didn't use >>> bullets? >> >> As a child of <table> <summary> (or any other element) has too bad >> legacy compatibility properties to work. > > I suppose there was meant to be a comma between "<table>" and > "<summary>". Indeed. I discussed the issues here: > > http://www.w3.org/mid/4A2DC7A6.206@malform.no Yes, I saw that; it was rather helpful. I am not sure it is always accurate though. For example you assert that "Until <summary> as child of <table> is fully supported cross browser, authors must place the summary as child of <figure>. This is a fully workable solution though.". The statement that this solution is fully workable ignores the fact that AT must be updated to understand the <figure> element implies a relationship between the <figcaption> (or <legend>) and the table. Otherwise the user experience will be the same as placing the summary in an unassociated paragraph below the table. I am under the impression that this is not considered acceptable for users of current UAs. > Semantics is what must be agreed upon first, though. If the goal is to find the best solution in the least time, pruning possible solutions that have significant technical flaws early seems like a better approach than keeping those as potential solutions after the significant flaws have been recognised. I believe the parsing of unexpected children of <table> in existing UAs is a significant enough problem that we should reject any solution that relies on it, even if it can be shown that the behaviour is not needed for the specific case of <summary> in <table> in order to retain web compatibility and thus could be changed in future UAs. I believe this view is consistent with our design principles.
Received on Wednesday, 10 June 2009 15:30:39 UTC