[Bug 5823] Scope allowable on a td

http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=5823


Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@iki.fi> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |hsivonen@iki.fi




--- Comment #8 from Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@iki.fi>  2008-07-02 12:07:12 ---
(In reply to comment #5)
> The argument could
> continue ad nauseum about whether the table /could/ be made more simple. Most
> can but thats not the issue really.

It seems to me that most accessibility arguments revolve around "could". And
different people have a different view of what parts are constant and what
"could" vary.

For example, Hixie *seems* to assume that when making a table more accessible,
the choice of td vs. th for a given cell is variable, and that the overall
structure of the table "could" be simplified to make it more accessible. You
*seem* to be saying that the overall table complexity is not a part that
"could" change, but then people "could" make adjustments to the scope and
headers attributes.

Personally, I care more about "would" that "could". That is, having a means for
marking up really complex relationships doesn't help much if the kind of people
who make complex tables to begin with won't end up using the mechanism. I'm
very skeptical of solutions that require an accessibility-specific layer of
annotation compared to solutions that let accessibility come as a side effect
of more general-purpose semantics. Intuitively, I'd go for a message of "make
tables simpler and use <th> for headers" than for a message "make tables as
complex as you like and then annotate them with headers/scope".


-- 
Configure bugmail: http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the QA contact for the bug.

Received on Wednesday, 2 July 2008 12:07:48 UTC