<Swing Dev> <Sound Dev> [9] Review Request: 8180326 Update the tables in java.desktop to be HTML-5 friendly

Wed Jun 7 17:52:57 UTC 2017

Hi, Alexander. 
These closing tags are optional in html5 standard [1]. On the link to the SO there are three the example which work differently but according standards[2][3][4]. 

[1] https://www.w3.org/TR/html5/syntax.html#syntax-tag-omission 

[2] http://jsfiddle.net/robertc/rNv93/1/ 
[3] http://jsfiddle.net/UqzEp/2/ 
[4] http://jsfiddle.net/UqzEp/3/ 

----- alexander.zvegintsev at oracle.com wrote: 
> 

Hi Sergey, 
> 

Why do we omitting closing th tag? 
> 

e.g. 
> 

+     * <caption>Metal's system color mapping</caption> +     * <thead> +     *  <tr> +     *    <th>Key +     *    <th>Value +     * </thead> 

I know that HTML parsers are usually forgiving such things. But sometimes it may make thing worse: 
> 

https://stackoverflow.com/questions/7125354/what-are-the-actual-problems-of-not-closing-tags-and-attributes-in-html/7135378#7135378 

Thanks,
Alexander. 
> On 05/06/2017 06:23, Sergey Bylokhov wrote: 
> 

If there are no objections I'll change the target ws from dev to client, to minimize the merges between some other javadoc fixes.

----- sergey.bylokhov at oracle.com wrote: 

Hello.
Here is an updated version where most of the caption are visible.
Bug: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8180326 Webrev can be found at: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~serb/8180326/webrev.02/ Specdiff: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~serb/8180326/specdiff.02/overview-summary.html You can use search to check the changes in some specific class:
Old docs: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~serb/8180326/api_old.02/overview-summary.html New docs: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~serb/8180326/api.02/overview-summary.html ----- jonathan.gibbons at oracle.com wrote: 

Phil,

I have no evidence one way or the other whether screen readers pay 
attention
to undisplayed or invisible captions. It seemed safest to assume that 

they would
read a visible caption, and that we should head in that general
direction.

-- Jon

On 05/17/2017 11:58 AM, Phil Race wrote: 

And PS I was not saying anything to contradict 

tables should not have a summary attribute and should have a caption. 

However that the docs I read on the web did seem to imply that
summary was very much intended for ATs but it was not at all clear 

this 

is the point of caption. I'm sure they can read it, but I don't get 

how making
it visible matters to them so how it making it visible relates to 

accessibility
requirements is not an obvious connection to me. So why do we have 

to make it visible for ATs ?

-phil.

On 05/17/2017 11:54 AM, Phil Race wrote: 

I will leave the decision on whether to do that now up to Sergey 

although
it seems all he has to do here is remove "invisible".
Many of the "summary" ones had wrong or misleading text but they
seem to have been all fixed.

I'd want to see what the new HTML looks like with a visible title 

of 

course ..

-phil.

On 05/17/2017 11:52 AM, Jonathan Gibbons wrote: 

Phil,

The bottom line is that in the JDK docs, tables should not have a 

summary attribute and should have a caption. This comes down to 

accessibility requirements, where we are slowly raising the bar on 

our docs, to be in accordance with Oracle's guidelines.

Hiding the caption (style="display:none") is an interim measure we 

have been using during the HTML 5 updates, especially in cases where 

the person doing the markup changes did not know enough to create 

an 

appropriate caption that should be displayed. In time, we should 

locate and update all table captions (in our standard docs bundle) 

that are not being displayed such that the text is both appropriate 

and visible. If you guys want to do that as part of this update, 

go 

ahead. FWIW, that is what we did for the java.xml module in the jaxp 

repo ... pretty much all tables there now have a reasonable, visible 

caption.

-- Jon

On 05/17/2017 11:19 AM, Phil Race wrote: 

I am not sure we are using the summary in a way that makes it 
worthwhile.
As you noted in the other mail
"The summary attribute was used to give a more descriptive value 

of the contents of the table.   A caption is more like a title" 

The values I see are more like a title and as you say that is not 

the idea. See the example here https://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20-TECHS/H73.html Caption sounds like a title so it might actually be more 
appropriate than summary
for the text we have except that its not clear why we'd want it 

to 

be visible when we were fine without.

But being there and invisible may be pointless unless screen 
readers look for it even if invisible.

But if its not doing any harm I guess we can leave it as proposed 

I still need to look at the rest of the changes.

-phil.

On 05/12/2017 05:11 PM, Jonathan Gibbons wrote: 

Sergey,

FWIW, the invisible caption should be regarded as a temporary 

solution, until content authors can review/update the text of the 

caption and make it visible.

The general guideline in this conversion work has been to avoid 

changing the visible text of the specification, and captions fall 

into a grey area of whether the text is significant/normative or 

not.  Hence the temporary step to make them not displayed for now. 

-- Jon

On 05/12/2017 05:00 PM, Sergey Bylokhov wrote: 

The "summary" is unsupported by the HTML5 and we replace it by 

invisible caption.
These new styles are located in the stylesheet.css in the root 

of 

the JavaDoc api folder, so I assume these styles should be used 

by others as well.
They were added by this fix: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8179479 ----- philip.race at oracle.com wrote: 

Does this in any way match the rest of the docs ? Or is everyone 

left
to
style things how they want.
I thought (?) maybe there is to be some javadoc tool support 

for 

CSS
styles.

Also why are all the table summaries removed ?

-phil.

On 5/12/17, 4:52 PM, Sergey Bylokhov wrote: 

This is because I use the same style for most of the tables 

'class="striped"', which apply the same/unified style for 
all(most) of
our tables. 

Also this is because I removed 'inlined' styles, like here: 

http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~serb/8180326/api_old.01/java/awt/font/TextAttribute.html 

----- philip.race at oracle.com wrote: 

Adding 2d-dev because a number of the files are 2D.

What is the general reason for changing the appearance of the 

tables? 

-phil.

On 5/12/17, 4:25 PM, Sergey Bylokhov wrote: 

Hello,
Please review the fix for jdk9-dev.

This fix is a part of the effort to make all javadoc in jdk9 be 

compatible to HTML5. 

It covers all errors which are reported by the javadoc tool 

during 

the build of jdk for java.desktop module. 

Bug: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8180326 Webrev can be found at: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~serb/8180326/webrev.01 

Note that an appearance of some tables were changed after 

the 

fix: 

Before: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~serb/8180326/api_old.01/java/awt/font/TextAttribute.html 

After: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~serb/8180326/api.01/java/awt/font/TextAttribute.html 

Before: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~serb/8180326/api_old.01/javax/sound/sampled/AudioSystem.html 

After : http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~serb/8180326/api.01/javax/sound/sampled/AudioSystem.html 

Before: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~serb/8180326/api_old.01/javax/sound/sampled/AudioPermission.html 

After: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~serb/8180326/api.01/javax/sound/sampled/AudioPermission.html 

>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/swing-dev/attachments/20170607/01798b77/attachment.html>