W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > August 2007

Re: Review of 3.15.1. The table element

From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
Date: Wed, 22 Aug 2007 12:24:20 -0500
To: "Philip Taylor (Webmaster)" <P.Taylor@Rhul.Ac.Uk>
Cc: Mihai Sucan <mihai.sucan@gmail.com>, public-html <public-html@w3.org>
Message-Id: <1187803460.29837.1129.camel@pav>

On Wed, 2007-08-22 at 18:15 +0100, Philip Taylor (Webmaster) wrote:
> Sorry, I rarely look at these detailed proposals, but
> Mihai's might benefit by a little grammatical work :
>  > "Due to historic reasons, tables are being used by Web authors for
>  > designing layouts. However, this is considered bad practice and it's
>  > strongly discouraged. As a conformance criteria, layout tables are
>  > disallowed. Web authors must only use tables for tabular data."
> ->
>  > "For both historical and practical reasons, tables have been used
>  > (and are still used today) by Web authors to implement layouts.
>  > This is, however, widely accepted to be bad practice for reasons
>  > of accessibility, and is strongly discouraged. As a conformance
>  > criterion, layout tables are disallowed. Web authors may use tables
>  > when marking up strictly tabular data; no other usages are permitted."
> Sadly I do not think that any conformance tool could reliably
> identify such tables.  It may therefore be necessary to tone
> down the wording to match reality.

Are you assuming that conformance criteria are objective
to the point of machine-checkable? That appeals to me,
but it's not something this WG has decided, nor even something
that the editor's draft says.

It currently says things such as...

"Conformance checkers are exempt from detecting errors that require
interpretation of the author's intent"
 -- http://www.w3.org/html/wg/html5/#conformance

Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
Received on Wednesday, 22 August 2007 17:24:36 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Thursday, 29 October 2015 10:15:25 UTC