- From: Charles McCathieNevile <charles@w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 5 Mar 2001 11:58:15 -0500 (EST)
- To: "Leonard R. Kasday" <kasday@acm.org>
- cc: Al Gilman <asgilman@iamdigex.net>, William Loughborough <love26@gorge.net>, <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
The words say, provide a summary (a short synopsis, precis, etc), and give, as one example of how to do t in one language, the use of HTML's summary attribute. I would also be looking for a summary in testing for triple-A, but in reaching for it myself I prefer to have a caption element, and possibly add additional information in a summary. (This is because I don't use layout tables. If I did I would note that they are layout tables in the summary). cheers Charles McCN On Mon, 5 Mar 2001, Leonard R. Kasday wrote: Al wrote: quote 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. unquote However, WCAG 1.0 says quote 5.5 Provide summaries for tables. [Priority 3] For example, in HTML, use the "summary" attribute of the TABLE element. Techniques for checkpoint 5.5 unquote That seems to say that summary is required. Personally, I'd agree with Al that summary isn't always needed. There's the case Al mentioned where title and caption might suffice. There's also another case: where the text of the document happens to describe the table. In other words, I see summary like a longdesc: a longer explanation that isn't always needed. Anyway, the next time I'm rating a page for triple A, do I need to require summary? I'd look to the folks doing HTML techniques to answer this for 2.0... we can then issue an errata against 1.0 if necessary. In the meantime, I'm going to have to go by what I see as the plain meaning of the words and require a summary for triple A compliance even in cases where I have say that it isn't really necessary. I hope this gets resolved before I run across this in a real case. Len
Received on Monday, 5 March 2001 11:58:33 UTC