[Bug 24647] Define table@border as explicit indication that the *borders* are meaningful in some media and/or UAs

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

Robin Berjon <robin@w3.org> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|REOPENED                    |RESOLVED
         Resolution|---                         |WONTFIX

--- Comment #29 from Robin Berjon <robin@w3.org> ---
EDITOR'S RESPONSE: This is an Editor's Response to your comment. If you are
satisfied with this response, please change the state of this bug to CLOSED. If
you have additional information and would like the Editor to reconsider, please
reopen this bug. If you would like to escalate the issue to the full HTML
Working Group, please add the TrackerRequest keyword to this bug, and suggest
title and text for the Tracker Issue; or you may create a Tracker Issue
yourself, if you are able to do so. For more details, see this document:

   http://dev.w3.org/html5/decision-policy/decision-policy.html

Status: Rejected
Change Description: none
Rationale:
There *never* is a situation in which a proper use of table would not,
potentially, on some medium, benefit from having its structure highlighted.
*That is what a table is.*

Authors who do not want to have their table structure highlighted in any
context can use role=presentational.

UAs are free to use @border as a heuristic, but the data show that it is
imperfect.

The text that is currently in the specification seems strange because it is
trying to justify the strange idea that one could want to use an attribute to
indicate that a semantic element really is semantic. It's not strange because
it is poorly written, it's strange because it's capturing a strange idea.

Switching that to talk about highlighting is just playing a synonyms game. It
is only different if you believe that tables are not semantic — and therefore
open to highlighting on some media — by default.

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

Received on Friday, 28 February 2014 16:49:46 UTC