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

Re: Complex Table Examples

From: aurélien levy <aurelien.levy@free.fr>
Date: Wed, 06 Jun 2007 10:15:48 +0200
Message-ID: <46666D34.4090903@free.fr>
To: public-html@w3.org


> Whatever the reasion, I don't think Aurélien's Table test page (consciously) has a single table which uses the BASIC algorithm. 
look at table with just th and complex table with th only
> Allthough, all the tables which does not have either HEADERS or SCOPE will/should use it, of course. **I think the test page needs to be updated to get tables which uses all 3 algoritms, and different variants of them.**
>   
i don't understand, the only problem i see is that some of the scope 
example is not correctly marked because i haven't used the colgroup 
element. Otherwise send me some example and i will add it the the page
>  In that coding praxis, each _data cell_ must have a HEADERS attribute which tells who its header cells are. 
i don't where he say something like that
> I have the feeling that some of the HEADERS defender here a really talking about this cumbersome coding praxis. And it might also be that those that defend the new algorithm have only this bad use of HEADERS in mind.
>   
yeah you are right i think for my part i am not a headers defender i 
only say that :
- currently there are some assistive technology out there that still 
need them
- that i some case we can't do without it (except recoding all irregular 
table but i don't think it's very productive on the one hand we say stop 
using headers to be more productive and on the others hand we say recode 
all your table who actually use it to make regular table)
- we actually have some people out there who used it correctly, ok few, 
but for this one if they want to conform they have to recode all the 
data table they have done
- it's actually in the wcag 1.0 and 2.0 who is legal mandatory in a lot 
of country

And don't forget the summary attribut, like the test case proved it, 
it's actually supported, very useful and i don't see any fallback 
technique to have the same information (maybe write the value of the 
summary directly in the content but come on if nobody use summary nobody 
will do that too).
Received on Wednesday, 6 June 2007 08:16:01 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 9 May 2012 00:16:00 GMT