- From: Leif Halvard Silli <lhs@malform.no>
- Date: Sun, 01 Mar 2009 20:59:56 +0100
- To: Robert J Burns <rob@robburns.com>
- 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>
Robert J Burns 2009-03-01 20.09: > On Mar 1, 2009, at 1:55 PM, Leif Halvard Silli wrote: >> Robert J Burns 2009-03-01 19.24: >>> [...] 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. >> But if HTML5 goes for caption@summary then it can be >> portrayed this way: >> >> Because authors did not see that the two has to have >> different content, and because authors kept writing "layout >> tables" in table@summary, something they are not known to use >> <caption> for, @summary was moved to <caption> to help >> authors to discern between the <caption> and @summary and to >> help them see that both are visible metadata, except that >> @summary is only visible for the unsighted. (Plus that it is >> easier to test via CSS etc.) > > I think that is an excellent point. I would also add to that > another point. While Gez earlier lamented the problem of adding > an empty 'caption' element simply to provide a summary of the > table, I think in practice we would find it very rare to have a > table so complex to require a summary, but not needing a > caption. I cannot say I have every encountered such a table, > but they might exist. I don't want to hide any issues: Matt mentioned something about 'navigation tables' [1] (which to mee seems like a variant of layout tables, to be frank). But other than that, I agree strongly. > Also sometimes a change like this has the effect or raising > awareness, where without the change the same poor practices > might simply continue. I think so too. [1] http://www.w3.org/mid/C5CC65E2.19D81%25mattmay@adobe.com -- leif halvard silli
Received on Sunday, 1 March 2009 20:00:48 UTC