W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html-a11y@w3.org > December 2009

FW: CHANGE PROPOSAL: Table Summary

From: Cynthia Shelly <cyns@microsoft.com>
Date: Tue, 1 Dec 2009 20:15:59 +0000
To: HTML Accessibility Task Force <public-html-a11y@w3.org>
Message-ID: <C7412B925ACA454EADB3B6ECF5B960E809117D@TK5EX14MBXC133.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
Can we please put this on the agenda for 12/10?  I have a prior engagement this week, so I won't be able to discuss it on 12/3.

Thank you,
Cynthia

From: public-html-request@w3.org [mailto:public-html-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Cynthia Shelly
Sent: Tuesday, December 01, 2009 12:03 PM
To: Maciej Stachowiak
Cc: HTML WG Public List
Subject: RE: CHANGE PROPOSAL: Table Summary

Thank you, Maciej.  I will ask to have this proposal put on the agenda for the HTML-a11y call, so that we can produce a final draft.


From: Maciej Stachowiak [mailto:mjs@apple.com]
Sent: Tuesday, December 01, 2009 11:49 AM
To: Cynthia Shelly
Cc: HTML WG Public List
Subject: Re: CHANGE PROPOSAL: Table Summary


On Nov 19, 2009, at 8:33 AM, Cynthia Shelly wrote:

Here is the change proposal to address the issues around summary.  The description and details are in the link, the spec text for the table section in the attached .html file.   I'll link to it in the list archive once this mail is in there.

http://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/HTML/wiki/Summary_Change_Proposal_Nov_18%2C_2009#References

<table2.html>

Thanks for providing a Change Proposal for this issue! The chairs are reviewing Change Proposals to ensure that they meet the required structure. Here is our feedback on this Change Proposal:

1) It contains all of the required parts of a Change Proposal and thus meets the basic structural requirements.

2) The Summary is extremely long - most of it should be in Details, and the current contents of Details would make a fine Summary. We suggest mostly exchanging Details (other than the link to the drafted spec text) and Summary to make the summary concise.

3) The Change Proposal requests multiple changes, however, the Rationale section only covers rationale for some of them. In particular, there does not appear to be rationale for the following:
    (a) The new table@orientation attribute.
    (b) The new DOM API to retrieve the headings associated with a cell.
    (c) The guidance for conformance checkers, which requires a warning or advisory on any table that has any kind of description (summary, caption, legend, or aria-describedby).

We suggest updating the Change Proposal to reflect the feedback in points (2) and (3).

Regards,
Maciej
Received on Tuesday, 1 December 2009 20:16:52 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 27 April 2012 04:41:57 GMT