[Bug 24647] Define table@border as explicit indication that the *borders* are meaningful

https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=24647

--- Comment #8 from Andrea Rendine <master.skywalker.88@gmail.com> ---
I can't talk in stead of the publisher of this (IMO important) issue and
proposal. But I can suggest one possible answer, from a quick review of the
data you have linked.
I made the same mistake above. To link a data table stating that it needs
borders because of its data-type content. Now I don't think that it's the point
here if tables are used for data or not. The fact is, sometimes borders greatly
improve readability of content in a table. When? these can be some relevant
points for a reasonable choice:
 - a table with several cells in a row, and multiple rows
 - a complex grid layout, with some cell sistematically spanning over multiple
rows/columns
 - content primarily constituted by text, with no further significant box model
 - in some cells the data take more lines, or are extremely compact.
In these cases, but perhaps even in other ones, without borders it becomes
difficult to understand what correlations a table is going to show. Borders (as
zebra stripes, as other visual improvements) are simply a visual way to
represent the structure of content. The difference between <table> and
<table@border> is that the latter needs a visual aid to be comprehended. This
kind of border goes beyond the aesthetical purposes, exactly like <ol@type>
goes beyond the purposes of simply choosing a point style (and in effect in
<ul> element the list type is now a matter of stylesheet).
Finally, you must admit that authors unfortunately follow the 100th monkey
effect, and they apply what they know by tradition. In the most recent
Webdevdata survey the number of border attributes goes far beyond the number of
occurrances of <table> because it is used aesthetically in several places (e.g.
images). It's still a world with 7306 occurrances of the string <font!!!

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the QA Contact for the bug.

Received on Friday, 14 February 2014 12:59:06 UTC