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

Re: Complex Table Examples

From: aurelien levy <aurelien.levy@free.fr>
Date: Wed, 30 May 2007 13:10:26 +0200
Message-ID: <465D5BA2.8010304@free.fr>
To: HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>

Hi,

I well understand your willing but at this time we can't remove it 
without break the web accessibility for current AT (poor scope attribut 
support).
So, at minimum we need to keep it until the AT vendor update their 
technology, minimum because upgrade of AT isn't equal upgrade for the 
user, specially when you see the price of some widely used AT, for 
exemple for what i can see the most used version of jaws is currently 
the version number 6 and they have released the 8.

By the way, i think maybe we need an explicit mechanism for relationship 
between the dt and dd element like id and for attribut for label and input.

Aurélien Levy
----
http://www.fairytells.net
>
> Laziness is good. The more accessibility we can have by having those 
> kind of "implicit algorithms" the more pages will become accessible as 
> it doesn't cost authors anything to make those pages accessible. 
> Requiring authors to perform additional steps only works in a few 
> cases (when it's required by law or something) and even then they 
> might get it wrong due to incorrect tutorials or too complex 
> technology...
>
>
>> I don't understand the arguments for removing @headers though. Isn't
>> it already implemented in most browsers? There seem enough cases here
>> to warrant it's continued part in HTML.
>
> The arguments for removing it are that the feature isn't widely used, 
> that existing tutorials already get it wrong (spelling it header 
> instead of headers) and that it makes the language more complex if we 
> add it. We have to define exactly how it interacts with scope= what 
> headers="" means, etc. I'm not sure I see the advantages in an 
> increased learning cost for authors and a more complex language when a 
> simpler version of the languages handles the same use cases.
>
>
Received on Wednesday, 30 May 2007 11:11:45 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 29 September 2014 09:38:44 UTC