- From: Jim Jewett <jimjjewett@gmail.com>
- Date: Thu, 17 Sep 2009 11:23:36 -0400
- To: HTML WG Public List <public-html@w3.org>
Simon Pieters wrote:
<summary> would be no problem in <figure> and <details> as far as parsing
goes. In <table>, however, it would be a problem because in legacy
browsers the element would be moved outside the <table> in the DOM.
If the only problem is that legacy browsers turn it into a sibling
element instead of a child, that does seem like an acceptable
"graceful degradation" behavior.
I am a bit worried that the name wouldn't be sufficiently precise;
would this <summary> be a title, a full caption, the first half of a
<details> that serves as alternate content, or even a replacement for
the @summary attribute? And would this answer be obvious to people
who aren't referencing the spec, or would errors at least be easily
tolerable?
-jJ
Received on Thursday, 17 September 2009 15:24:36 UTC