- From: Simon Pieters <simonp@opera.com>
- Date: Tue, 23 Jun 2009 20:46:32 +0200
- To: "Laura Carlson" <laura.lee.carlson@gmail.com>, "Shelley Powers" <shelley.just@gmail.com>
- Cc: "Sam Ruby" <rubys@intertwingly.net>, "HTMLWG WG" <public-html@w3.org>
On Tue, 23 Jun 2009 20:14:40 +0200, Laura Carlson <laura.lee.carlson@gmail.com> wrote: > Sam wrote: > >> "why do we need @summary as opposed to >> something else or even nothing at all" > > Could break existing content that uses the summary attribute unless > summary attribute and summary (or equivalent) element were synonymous. > For backwards compatibility UAs could accept either @summary or > <summary> (or equivalent) element, while the spec could encourage the > use of the element in place of the attribute. That's what HTML5 already does, except the element is called "caption" instead of "summary". If a table element has a summary attribute, the user agent may report the contents of that attribute to the user. Note: Authors are encouraged to use the caption element instead of the summary attribute. http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/multipage/tabular-data.html#the-table-element I have heard arguments along the lines of "but captions and summaries are different" or "but captions should be short, summaries long", but I have not heard any argument as to why the user agent needs to be able to distinguish between the caption and the summary. (I might have missed it, please provide a pointer if so.) -- Simon Pieters Opera Software
Received on Tuesday, 23 June 2009 18:47:30 UTC