- From: Leif Halvard Silli <lhs@malform.no>
- Date: Sun, 01 Mar 2009 04:35:08 +0100
- To: Gez Lemon <gez.lemon@gmail.com>
- CC: Robert J Burns <rob@robburns.com>, HTMLWG WG <public-html@w3.org>, Steven Faulkner <faulkner.steve@gmail.com>, W3C WAI-XTECH <wai-xtech@w3.org>, Janina Sajka <janina@rednote.net>, Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
Gez Lemon 2009-03-01 02.45: > 2009/3/1 Robert J Burns <rob@robburns.com>: >> I certainly don't want to contribute to the confusion between caption and >> summary. Version B tries to reduce the confusion by being explicit about how >> to craft summary and captions (and with Leif's section also a more complete >> specification for crafting a caption). My view is that we only contribute to >> the confusion by not addressing these issues. > > I think the HTML 5 specification should simply state the purpose of > the summary attribute as unambiguously as possible, maybe with a > simple example, and point to WCAG 2.0 for advice on how to use the > summary attribute. My version, "version c - for caption", only differs from the first version, "version a", by defining @summary as an attribute of <caption>: <caption summary="Summary text."></caption> Rationale: With the author in mind. (1) While it *functionaly*, makes some sense to keep @summary as a global attribute (since the user might want to listen to the summary even when he is in the middle of the table - just like a visual user might call up table@title wherever he is), evidence shows that mentally and "meta-wise", authors needs to discern caption from summary. Therefore they need to see the two in the same context. (2) <caption> is a "meta element". @summary is meta info. (3) <caption> isn't used in layout tables. @summary isn't either. (4) caption@summary is simpler to to work with via CSS. This makes it simpler to test (aka "display") caption@summary in visual user agents than it is to display table@summary. table@summary should be deprecated = fully valid, though, as Julian proposed. It is a total misunderstanding if anyone thinks that my proposal is mixing <caption> and @summary. (But that doen't mean that it isn't possible that table@summary could a better choice than caption@summary, all things considered.) (The text isn't ready though, but since I perceived Rob to say that I write about <caption> in itself, I had to say this. Ok, I may be mented <caption>, but only because I see @summary as an attribute of <caption> ) -- leif halvard silli
Received on Sunday, 1 March 2009 03:35:54 UTC