- From: David Poehlman <david.poehlman@handsontechnologeyes.com>
- Date: Sun, 1 Mar 2009 11:52:03 -0500
- To: Leif Halvard Silli <lhs@malform.no>
- Cc: Gez Lemon <gez.lemon@gmail.com>, 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>
it's a matter of semantics. caption is equivalent to title, perhaps a bit more expansive. consider caption to photo and caption to table. now, summary is like long desc when comparing table to photo. On Mar 1, 2009, at 11:24 AM, Leif Halvard Silli wrote: David Poehlman 2009-03-01 17.11: > right, but we are talking here exclusively about data tables since > we'd like to seee tables for lay out go away unless we can so > constrain the markup that the differences between the to are highly > notable. It will be quite confusing to combine caption with summary. Why, when both belong in data tables? Leif H. S. > On Mar 1, 2009, at 11:00 AM, Leif Halvard Silli wrote: > Gez Lemon 2009-03-01 11.19: >> 2009/3/1 Leif Halvard Silli <lhs@malform.no>: >>>> 1: The summary attribute isn't a property of the caption element, >>>> but a >>>> property of the table itself (its purpose is to describe how to >>>> read the >>>> table, not how to read the caption). >>> Could it become a real problem that authors would think that >>> caption@summary is describing how to read the <caption>? >> Yes, it would be a problem. > Of course, yes. But this is not what I asked. So I answer myself: It > is unlikely to happen that authors will think that @summary is a > summary of the caption content. After all, what would a summary of a > tittle be? A one word sentence? >> The summary attribute is a property of the >> table, and in no way related to the caption element. All it would do >> is add confusion to something that already seems confused. I don't >> see >> the point in making it more confusing. > Don't you see <caption> as a property of the table? > Perhaps we should say that it is meaningless to a have separate > caption element. It would be better to have a @caption attribute of > <table> so that authors understsand for certain that caption is > related to the table. >>> It is exactly because authors needs to understand the difference >>> between >>> titling and summarizing that they need to be close. >> Relating unrelated concepts does not aid understanding. > @summary and <caption> are both related and unrelated. >>>> 2: There isn't a strong relationship between the caption element >>>> and the >>>> summary attribute; the caption element isn't required, but that >>>> doesn't >>>> mean a summary shouldn't be provided. >>> Both <caption> and @summary are optional. So why not keep the >>> optional meta >>> info in the same element? >> Because making the summary attribute dependent on the caption element >> reduces opportunities where the summary attribute can be used - if a >> caption isn't provided, it's impossible to provide a summary with >> this >> proposal (unless you provide an empty caption element, but the >> caption >> element shouldn't be empty if it's provided). As the summary >> attribute >> is no way dependent on a caption, serves a completely different >> purpose, and is a valuable accessibility attribute, it doesn't make >> sense to reduce the opportunities to provide a summary attribute. > As you admit below, caption@summary doesn't reduce any opportunity > where it can be used. For instance, no one would add - in David's > words - "narrative" (aka @summary) to a layout table. And neither > would they add a title (aka caption). So they two are *extremely* > related. >>> In my proposal, caption will be needed to provide a summary, (as >>> long as you >>> want to write undeprecated code). <caption> itself can be empty >>> though. As >>> long as <caption> is emtpy, it will not caption any attention in >>> visual user >>> agents. >> An empty caption element is an ugly hack just to make the summary >> attribute dependent on the caption element. > We can discuss if it is a hack. But you have not hit the spot when > you characterize why I propose this. > You are mistaking me for anothor ghost. >>> The only drawback I see here is that it will require more to add the >>> @summary since one needs to add the emtpy caption element first. >> The fact the summary attribute is in no way related to the caption >> element is also a drawback. > This remdinds my about me and my wife. When I say "similar", she say > "no, completely different".
Received on Sunday, 1 March 2009 16:52:46 UTC