- From: Leif Halvard Silli <lhs@malform.no>
- Date: Sun, 01 Mar 2009 21:16:16 +0100
- To: Robert J Burns <rob@robburns.com>
- CC: Gez Lemon <gez.lemon@gmail.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>
Robert J Burns 2009-03-01 20.43: > On Mar 1, 2009, at 12:39 AM, Leif Halvard Silli wrote: > >>> As for your proposal directly. I don't have any strong objections to >>> this approach. I also think your proposal would work equally well >>> with either version A or version B. >> >> Yes, I guess so. I saw text bit in version b which spoke about other >> users than speech and braille users, and I was not certain I agreed to >> that. > > Could you be more specific about which users you feel should not be > handled by summary. I could try to guess, but I might guess incorrectly. This is back to the issue of who @summary is for. I was compelled by Joshue's argument that it is better to have a specific @summary attribute than a to watered following the logic that it "perhaps" can be useful to other groups. In his own write [1]: "... better for @summary to properly serve the needs of non-sighted users than to provide a /sort of/ solution for other user groups. Also its worth saying that I would loath to see @summary (or any other useful elements/attributes) be removed and replaced because it /doesn't/ sort of, 'do' something for other user groups." My thinking is that if one wants to add info for other users that are challenged in their reading, one could use caption@title and make it visible in <caption> via CSS. Eventually one can use table@title. [1] http://www.w3.org/mid/49A7A616.4000005@cfit.ie -- leif halvard silli
Received on Sunday, 1 March 2009 20:16:59 UTC