- From: Leif Halvard Silli <lhs@malform.no>
- Date: Sun, 01 Mar 2009 17:22:31 +0100
- To: Philip TAYLOR <P.Taylor@Rhul.Ac.Uk>
- CC: Philip TAYLOR <Philip-and-LeKhanh@Royal-Tunbridge-Wells.Org>, public-html@w3.org, W3C WAI-XTECH <wai-xtech@w3.org>
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