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

Re: Review of 3.15.1. The table element

From: Ben Boyle <benjamins.boyle@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2007 23:52:26 +1000
Message-ID: <5f37426b0708230652p8b8456cs44ef49bf2703ab7d@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Philip Taylor (Webmaster)" <P.Taylor@rhul.ac.uk>
Cc: gonchuki <gonchuki@gmail.com>, public-html <public-html@w3.org>

Why not borrow wording from WCAG? Better still, limit ourselves to a
short note regarding accessibility and link to the WCAG advice.
http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG10/wai-pageauth.html#gl-table-markup
http://www.w3.org/TR/2007/WD-WCAG20-TECHS-20070517/Overview.html#H51

I'd like to see the HTML spec focus on HTML. WCAG focuses on
accessible authoring techniques. Strong links between the two will
provide a much better resource for authors reading either document.


On 8/23/07, Philip Taylor (Webmaster) <P.Taylor@rhul.ac.uk> wrote:
>
>
>
> gonchuki wrote:
>
> > A conformance tool could at least check the number of DOM nodes inside
> > table cells and raise a warning if above certain number. I mean, may
> > be a span or two are ok for visual formatting, but above that
> > threshold the conformance tool should raise a warning telling the
> > author to check that tables are not used for layout.
>
> On balance, I think a toning down is justified.  If a conformance
> criterion is not amenable to pass/fail validation, it should be
> re-expressed as a desideratum, with perhaps a (shared) footnote
> to the effect that it may be upgraded from "deprecated" to
> "disallowed" when AI has developed to the point at which its
> usage can be reliably detected by a programmable validator.
>
> Philip TAYLOR
>
>
Received on Thursday, 23 August 2007 13:52:31 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 29 September 2014 09:38:48 UTC