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

Re: headers= and rowgroup

From: Thomas Broyer <t.broyer@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 14 Sep 2007 08:45:30 +0200
Message-ID: <a9699fd20709132345s24f46c3cj1bada869b1f676cb@mail.gmail.com>
To: public-html@w3.org
2007/9/14, Leif Halvard Silli:
> But still, since it has been claimed by Anne that the spec hints
> that @HEADERS is augmentative (and while waiting for quotes
> from the text to suppport that claim), we can apply logic to see
> if it would be in accordance with anything in spec to say that
> @HEADERS is agumentative. E.g. if we have these two rows,
> <TR><TH ID=myhead>1<TD>2</TR>
> <TR><TH SCOPE=row>3<TD HEADERS=myhead>4</TR>
> then, if we were to expect that the header information which cell
> «3» propagates was added to the information from @HEADERS
> in cell «4» (so that cell «4» would have both cell «3» and cell «1»
> as headers), then we would contradict how @HEADERS is
> described other places, e.g. in section 11.4.3 («the basic algorithm»),
> where it is clearly said that
>         If a header cell has the headers attribute set, then the headers
>         referenced by this attribute are inserted into the list and the
>         **search stops for the current direction**.

Except that this algorithm applies "in the absence of header
information from either the scope or headers attribute", i.e. as soon
as a data cell is in the @scope of header cell, the given algorithm
*doesn't* apply.


> If a  cell with scope=row covers two rows, then I guess it als scope
> its headerness to both rows.

That's my guess two (and if I'm not misleading that's what the current
HTML5 draft says too).

> But if I get you right, then for e.g. the last example, you are saying
> that the R-cell, which has the @SCOPE=rowgroup, is header for all
> the other cells - as below?
>                    R s
>                    s s


> Are you then reading the wording «the rest of» in the specification for
> 'rowgroup' as «all the others»? (I.e. «... the rest of the row group that
> contains it» = 'all the other cells in the row group').


If it had been "R s / _ _" it wouldn't have been any different from scope=row.
If it had been "R _ / s _", it wouldn't have been any different from scope=col.
And I can't imagine how scope=rowgroup could lead to e.g. "R _ / _ s".

But the point is: we could discuss what HTML4 says (or does not say)
ad nauseam, that's not what will make HTML5 go forward. What's needed
is to define what people want and need, and compare that with what
current UAs do to try to not break backwards compatibility (and search
for existing documents making use of both headers and scope, to try to
continue "supporting existing content").

Thomas Broyer
Received on Friday, 14 September 2007 06:45:36 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Thursday, 29 October 2015 10:15:26 UTC