- From: Al Gilman <asgilman@iamdigex.net>
- Date: Thu, 01 Mar 2001 00:14:57 -0500
- To: love26@gorge.net (William Loughborough)
- Cc: w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
At 03:46 PM 2001-02-28 -0800, you wrote: >I found this in the archives and am curious as to why people were opposed >to requiring "summary" attribute with tables? Also I wonder what the "HC" >group is/was? > >ASG:: FWIW you can track this starting at ><http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-hc/1997OctDec/thread.html#sta rt>http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-hc/1997OctDec/thread.html#sta rt >So far of the three HC participants we have heard from there are three >'no' indications on the required? question. Makes consensus the other >way unlikely... On the other hand it would be good to implement his other >suggestion >and put in a non-trivial 'summary' value in the example tables. -- Al > > >-- >Love. > ACCESSIBILITY IS RIGHT - NOT PRIVILEGE > HC was a group to do an accessibility review of HTML 4.0 and CSS 2.0 as they were approaching W3C Recommendation status. You can find a summary of the results before we re-treaded the group with a more long-term charter as PF at <<http://www.w3.org/WAI/HC/report.html>http://www.w3.org/WAI/HC/report.html>. The argument against requiring a value of the SUMMARY attribute per se for all tables is that the SUMMARY is supplementary to the caption element or TITLE attribute for the table. See the discussion of CAPTION, not SUMMARY in HTML 4.01. In other words, the caption or title may suffice, you don't always need an expansion on these in a SUMMARY attribute. That is the theory as I understand it. Al c.f. <<http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ig/2000OctDec/0553.html>http:/ /lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ig/2000OctDec/0553.html>
Received on Wednesday, 28 February 2001 23:57:07 UTC