- From: Leif Halvard Silli <xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no>
- Date: Thu, 18 Feb 2010 16:44:50 +0100
- To: Shelley Powers <shelleypowers@burningbird.net>
- Cc: Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@iki.fi>, "public-html@w3.org WG" <public-html@w3.org>
Shelley Powers, Thu, 18 Feb 2010 07:39:08 -0600: [...] > I just can't think of anything more cluttering than a button/triangle > with label in a table that I shouldn't push. I notice, though, that > another aspect of the proposal is that details not be visible by > default in the table? But the whole concept of the element is that by > default the label part should be visible. This is going to play all > sorts of havoc with the web authoring community. If you don't have a <button>/<summary> inside, then it won't be visible. Though, I see that the proposal suggests that "If there is no child button element, the user agent SHOULD render a small button which matches the user interface of the user agent". > I do agree in the proposal that there is confusion about the use of > summary, for an element of details, as compared to summary as table > attribute. However, I was the only person who raised an objection on > this name. I saw that Maciej said the same thing. But, no you were not. I think that <summary> is a silly name indeed. And I told so on the list. Summary would have been a nice name to use instead of <details>. But not as a name for the details caption. > I would not have removed my own objection if I had seen > support for this objection from other members of the HTML WG team. I'm sorry that I looked away from the list for second ... The current solution has never had my support. -- leif halvard sili
Received on Thursday, 18 February 2010 15:45:24 UTC