W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > March 2009

Re: Draft text for summary attribute definition

From: David Poehlman <david.poehlman@handsontechnologeyes.com>
Date: Sun, 1 Mar 2009 11:52:03 -0500
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>
Message-Id: <652B5152-FEBA-4743-A7C2-27ADD3FD5587@handsontechnologeyes.com>
To: Leif Halvard Silli <lhs@malform.no>
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

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Thursday, 29 October 2015 10:15:43 UTC