- From: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
- Date: Mon, 06 Jul 2009 17:10:35 -0700
- To: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
- Cc: public-html@w3.org, wai-xtech@w3.org
On Jul 6, 2009, at 4:37 PM, Ian Hickson wrote: > On Mon, 6 Jul 2009, Maciej Stachowiak wrote: >> >> I think highlighting effective alternatives plus optional validator >> warnings will reduce the incidence of incorrect use. > > So would you agree to a proposal wherein the spec: > > * Gave a long list of possible ways to include explanatory text for > tables (e.g. in <details>, in prose, in <caption>), > > * Gave a couple of examples of explanatory text, > > * Made the summary="" attribute non-conforming but made it a down- > played > error, meaning it would get a more friendly treatment in validators > than a regular unknown attribute, > > * Explicitly said that summary="" was obsolete but pointed to a > section > on how to give examples, and > > * Encouraged authors (with a "should") to include explanatory text for > tables that met certain criteria of complexity. > > ...? Or do you think we should actually make summary="" conforming, as > opposed to a down-played error? I think the difference between down-played error and regular error is not very meaningful. The actual material difference between different diagnostic classes is not friendliness in the validator, but rather whether authors can still use the feature if they have a requirement (self-imposed or otherwise) to produce fully conforming content. Thus, I think a suggested non-error diagnostic would be better than a requirement for a down-played error, in that it would give the advanced experts who choose to disregard the warning the opportunity to have their content be conforming. Regards, Maciej
Received on Tuesday, 7 July 2009 00:11:19 UTC