W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > August 2008

Re: Deliverable for Action 72 @headers

From: Gez Lemon <gez.lemon@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 23 Aug 2008 21:23:40 +0100
Message-ID: <e2a28a920808231323o4cdb5b6bm98760627a950024c@mail.gmail.com>
To: "James Graham" <jg307@cam.ac.uk>
Cc: "HTML WG" <public-html@w3.org>, "W3C WAI-XTECH" <wai-xtech@w3.org>

2008/8/23 James Graham <jg307@cam.ac.uk>:
> Gez Lemon wrote:
>>
>> 2008/8/23 James Graham <jg307@cam.ac.uk>:
>>>
>>> For example, in the table under discussion [1]
>>
>> The table under discussion shouldn't be the one you're referring to. I
>> provided 3 examples for testing - two that were marked up accessibly,
>> and one that wasn't marked up accessibly. You're referring to the one
>> that wan't marked up accessibly. The table that should be under
>> discussion (the example used in the bug reports) is the complex data
>> table that uses headers:
>> http://juicystudio.com/wcag/tables/complexdatatable.html
>
> OK, but I don't think this makes any substantive difference to anything that
> I said. Have I missed something?

No, you haven't missed anything. I just wanted the conversation based
around the headers example if we're going to talk about the headers
attribute. Although nested header elements do not feel right, I
wouldn't oppose the idea, as it could provide the relationship
necessary to work. All I care about is that we're able to markup data
tables accessibly.

Gez

-- 
_____________________________
Supplement your vitamins
http://juicystudio.com
Received on Saturday, 23 August 2008 20:24:16 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 29 September 2014 09:38:57 UTC