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

Re: Comparison of Smart Headers and HTML5 (ACTION-85)

From: Joshue O Connor <joshue.oconnor@cfit.ie>
Date: Mon, 08 Dec 2008 16:51:51 +0000
Message-ID: <493D50A7.2020401@cfit.ie>
To: Ben Millard <cerbera@projectcerbera.com>
Cc: Lachlan Hunt <lachlan.hunt@lachy.id.au>, HTMLWG <public-html@w3.org>, WAI-XTECH <wai-xtech@w3.org>

> Joshue O Connor wrote:
>> As an aside, I don't really see how what is being suggested is that
>> different what currently happens within HTML 4 [...].
> 
> HTML5:
> 
> * Defines what happens accurately and without ambiguity. (If you find
> anywhere this isn't the case, be sure to mention it!)
> * Handles some cases which HTML4 definitely does not.
> * Clarifies many things which HTML4 is vague about.
> * Makes table accessibility a UA requirement. (In HTML4, supporting
> table accessibility features is optional.)

Thanks for that. I think a simple explicit outline, like the one above,
was needed.

> It's difficult to pin down "what currently happens within HTML4":

I think you know what I meant.

> * How the various association mechanisms interact with each other is
> undefined.
> * Exactly when does the automatic algorithm get used?
> * Imprecise descriptions of the table model, such as what constitutes "a
> column".
> * Conflicting descriptions of what influences specific features.

Again, good stuff and needed.

> Joshue O Connor wrote:
>> If you can, could you please highlight for me (briefly) what the
>> differences/improvements are?
> 
> 
> HTML5's biggest improvement is having a clear description of the table
> model with a unified header association algorithm to define how it all
> works together, imho. From this, you can assess what happens in any
> table much more precisely.

FWIW this is useful work Ben, thank you. However, there is still a need
for consensus on the functional requirements of the language (explicit
semantic associations, aside from the algorithm) that could be ideally
supported by older UAs or, at the very least, be easily implemented by
AT vendors.

Cheers

Josh
Received on Monday, 8 December 2008 16:52:37 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 9 May 2012 00:16:27 GMT