- From: Gez Lemon <gez.lemon@gmail.com>
- Date: Sun, 1 Mar 2009 00:51:50 +0000
- To: Robert J Burns <rob@robburns.com>
- Cc: HTMLWG WG <public-html@w3.org>, Leif Halvard Silli <lhs@malform.no>, Steven Faulkner <faulkner.steve@gmail.com>, W3C WAI-XTECH <wai-xtech@w3.org>, Janina Sajka <janina@rednote.net>, Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
2009/2/28 Robert J Burns <rob@robburns.com>: > The substantive differences between version A and version B is that version > B follows WCAG in recommending summary="" for layout tables and also directs > authors to include a caption within 'summary' if the author elects to omit a > caption entirely (though prohibiting the use of 'summary' for caption when > the author includes 'caption' content). The idea here is that non-visual > users have a strong need for a caption even though captions can often be > omitted due to context for visual users. WCAG 2.0 does not recommend using summary="" for layout tables. There is a note in one of the WCAG 2.0 techniques that states that a null summary is acceptable on layout tables [1], but it is not a WCAG 2.0 recommendation. HTML 5 should not encourage the use of layout tables by describing how to create layout tables in the specification. The purpose of the caption element and the summary attribute are completely different (caption titles the table, summary describes how the table should be read by people who cannot see how the table has been rendered), and they shouldn't be confused. Version A doesn't encourage layout tables, and it doesn't confuse the purpose of the summary attribute. Most of the debate around the summary attribute has been about misunderstanding its purpose, so trying to merge its purpose with another element's purpose is probably not the best way of getting the summary attribute into the HTML5 specification. [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/2008/NOTE-WCAG20-TECHS-20081211/H73 -- _____________________________ Supplement your vitamins http://juicystudio.com
Received on Sunday, 1 March 2009 00:52:30 UTC