- From: Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@MIT.EDU>
- Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2009 12:57:50 -0400
- To: John Foliot <jfoliot@stanford.edu>
- CC: joshue.oconnor@cfit.ie, "'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>
John Foliot wrote: > Boris Zbarsky wrote: >> require UAs to look for the relationships between data >> cells in that attribute and then in @summary in that order > "2.3. Do not Reinvent the Wheel - If there is already a widely > used and implemented technology covering particular use cases, consider > specifying that technology in preference to inventing something new for > the same purpose. Yeah, hence my question about whether my suggestion would make sense, instead of me saying that we should just do what I suggest. If it would be enough of a win in terms of people using the attribute correctly, it might be worth it for the accessibility benefits that brings. > It is becoming increasingly clear that, as Josh O'Connor wrote [1], there > needs to be a disambiguation of @summary, and clear, precise guidance on > its usage, which evidence is showing was clearly lacking in HTML4 (i.e. > better "specify that technology"). However I seriously question > jettisoning @summary for @datastructure simply to address existing holes > in usage and intent of @summary. I didn't suggest "jettisoning". See above, and in particular the quoted part of my post. I'm suggesting having @summary work exactly as it does now in UAs and maybe adding a less-misuse-prone attribute that we recommend web developers use. That's all operating on the assumption that we do in fact want to have an attribute for describing the data relationships in a table. I have no opinion as to whether we do. -Boris
Received on Wednesday, 10 June 2009 17:00:18 UTC