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

Re: Draft text for summary attribute definition

From: Robert J Burns <rob@robburns.com>
Date: Sun, 1 Mar 2009 13:24:48 -0500
Cc: Philip TAYLOR <P.Taylor@Rhul.Ac.Uk>, Philip TAYLOR <Philip-and-LeKhanh@Royal-Tunbridge-Wells.Org>, public-html@w3.org, W3C WAI-XTECH <wai-xtech@w3.org>
Message-Id: <50543706-BAD8-4D25-8DA8-6E88120264D9@robburns.com>
To: Leif Halvard Silli <lhs@malform.no>
Hi Leif,

Some are arguing with you that your proposal doesn't make sense. I  
cannot imagine what they would be thinking in that respect. If we were  
designing HTML from scratch I could easily see attaching the 'summary'  
attribute to the 'caption' element.

However, I think given that we already have legacy content and legacy  
UAs that support a 'summary' attribute on the 'table' element instead  
of the 'caption' element, it is more important to discuss what compels  
us to make a change now. That's the only part I'm having trouble  
understanding. Indeed there are similarities and differences between  
captions and summaries and the common confusion by authors between  
them needs to be addressed. However, I don't yet see how moving the  
summary from the table to the caption substantially addresses the  
confusions. Indeed I'm concerned it might introduce other confusion.

Take care,
Rob

On Mar 1, 2009, at 11:22 AM, Leif Halvard Silli wrote:

> 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 18:25:33 UTC

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