Re: Draft text for summary attribute definition

Philip TAYLOR 2009-03-01 17.03:
> Leif Halvard Silli wrote:
> 
>> Philip TAYLOR 2009-03-01 11.33:
> 
>>> But we are not discussing where the summary should appear visually;
>>
>> As if I do? Where is that shaddow you're fighting?
> 
> But where are these cells, if not in the physical
> (visual) realisation ?  I see no cells in the markup;
> all I see are table data and table headings, which
> are container elements rather than cells.

I don't follow.

In the text I have worked with (but these e-mails hinders me from 
it), I pondered making caption@title related to the entire table.


>>> we are discussing where it should appear in the markup.
>>
>> right.
>>
>>>  And in the
>>> markup, <TABLE> is the 'one "cell" - or place - that relates to all
>>> the cells', so it is surely as an attribute of <TABLE> that "summary"
>>> should appear.
>>
>> Here is a comparison:
>>
>> The name of <table> is from now on <html>.
>> The name of <tbody> is from now on <body>.
>> The name of <caption> - now called <head>.
> 
> But <head> elements are defined not to appear in
> the rendered page; caption, on the other hand,
> is expected to be rendered.

Attributes are in a gray sone.

>> So, no, I don't see why <caption> is a "totally unrelated concept". 
>> For some reason, there is no problem accepting that meta-information 
>> and "What this page is about" information goes into the <head> element.
> 
> Yes, it goes into the <head> element because the metadata
> are not to be rendered.

Placing @summary in table instead of caption doesn't make it more 
logical that is should be rendered (to screen readers).
-- 
leif h s

Received on Sunday, 1 March 2009 16:23:19 UTC