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

Re: Draft text for summary attribute definition

From: Leif Halvard Silli <lhs@malform.no>
Date: Sun, 01 Mar 2009 18:00:48 +0100
Message-ID: <49AABF40.1050807@malform.no>
To: David Poehlman <david.poehlman@handsontechnologeyes.com>
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 is not about semantics, it is about logics. Semantics is what 
we define in this group. Logics we do not define. I maintain that 
caption@summary is logical, and suggest that the semantics of 
table@summary therefore should be moved to caption@summary.

Leif

David Poehlman 2009-03-01 17.52:
> 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 17:01:42 UTC

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