- From: Ben 'Cerbera' Millard <cerbera@projectcerbera.com>
- Date: Wed, 8 Aug 2007 02:09:01 +0100
- To: "Robert Burns" <rob@robburns.com>, "Dan Connolly" <connolly@w3.org>
- Cc: "HTMLWG" <public-html@w3.org>
Contrived tables are risky. You can end up thinking mechanisms are needed to address a hypothetical use-case, only to find such use-cases don't actually exist. Working with genuine examples found on the web gives an automatic reality check. So your efforts get focussed on how to express cell arrangements to users which real authors definitely build. As such, I agree with Ian Hickson's recent clarification [1] that tables built solely to demonstrate theoretical association needs ([2]?) are not genuine and should probably be ignored. It's great to see people getting their hands dirty but let's work on real issues? I also advise against making the term "heading" and alias for the term "header" and then deleting "header" from our vocabulary. These terms already have clear and specific meanings when discussing HTML. Diverging from these definitions causes inconsistency which makes discussions harder to understand, imho. As well as making them a little harder to track via e-mail subject lines. :-) When talking about HTML table headers, I think "headers" is the best word available. Perhaps Dan Connolly has some thoughts about what research is valuable and the consistent use of terms within this Group? [1] <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2007Aug/0328.html> [2] <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2007Aug/att-0363/ComplexTables.html> -- Ben 'Cerbera' Millard Collections of Interesting Data Tables <http://sitesurgeon.co.uk/tables/readme.html>
Received on Wednesday, 8 August 2007 01:09:21 UTC