Re: summary="" in HTML5 ISSUE-32

Maciej Stachowiak wrote:

> It also seems that below you're also arguing that putting such 
> information in summary is OK:

I am arguing that the specification should not attempt
to define what may, or may not, appear as the content
of any attribute the content-model of which is effectively
"plain text".  The specification may (and should)
/recommend/ the use to which the field should be
put, but it cannot (and should not) mandate it, since
it would be impossible for a validator to ascertain
whether or not a particular document was violating the
specification.

> I think this would be a question of good practice, not conformance, 
> because I am dubious about conformance criteria that are subjective and 
> not machine-checkable. 

Absolutely agree.

> However, the kinds of information that people put 
> in there or might put in there, should inform our design of HTML5.

Since we can never know (in advance) "the kinds of information that people
might put in there", I cannot agree that such a consideration should
provide any input to the design of HTML 5.

> I think that would also be a poor practice; such additional information 
> should go in title, a figure caption, or the content around the image. I 
> believe putting information that is additional rather than equivalent in 
> alt would be nonconforming per the current draft regarding alt text.

Then that is one part of the specification that I believe
requires further examination, for reasons directly analogous
to those given above.

Philip TAYLOR

Received on Thursday, 26 February 2009 19:35:44 UTC