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

Re: table headers - clear description of problem

From: Robert J Burns <rob@robburns.com>
Date: Mon, 25 Aug 2008 17:59:50 +0300
Cc: "'Laura Carlson'" <laura.lee.carlson@gmail.com>, "'Ian Hickson'" <ian@hixie.ch>, "'Steven Faulkner'" <faulkner.steve@gmail.com>, <public-html@w3.org>, "'W3C WAI-XTECH'" <wai-xtech@w3.org>, <wai-liaison@w3.org>
Message-Id: <A29AF225-6021-4D09-9F95-29BD8DC01E20@robburns.com>
To: <sailesh.panchang@deque.com>

HI Sailesh,

On Aug 25, 2008, at 5:58 PM, Sailesh Panchang wrote:

>
>> 2) the precedence when a headers attribute idref conflicts with the
>> scope attribute. In other words if the headers attribute references  
>> an
>> element while the scope attribute indicates the cell corresponding to
>> the element should not be associated, then the headers attribute
>> should take precedence.
> Sailesh:
> The headers-id method is  a "specific identification"  method by  
> which all
> data cells are explicitly associated with all their corresponding  
> header
> cells. I think if headers-id method is used, then "scope" should not  
> be
> allowed for that particular data table. It will make it very  
> difficult for
> AT as well as complicate evaluation process. It will indeed make  
> difficult
> things almost impossible.

In this suggestion among these suggesitons[1][2], I was referring to  
UA processing and not document conformance. There's nothing made  
impossible in this at all unless we fail to specify consistent  
behaviors for UAs so that authors can rely on that consistency. I  
think if you take another look at these suggestions, they make  
authoring even very complex tables quite simple.

Take care,
Rob

[1]: <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2008Aug/0687.html>
[2]: <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2008Aug/0694.html>
Received on Monday, 25 August 2008 15:00:43 UTC

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