W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > February 2009

revised table headers design is OK, right?

From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
Date: Wed, 11 Feb 2009 13:04:02 -0600
To: public-html@w3.org
Message-Id: <1234379042.28267.1118.camel@pav.lan>
We have been tracking a table-headers issue-20 since 2007-11-21:

"The table headers algorithm currently in the HTML 5 spec does not deal
with some common table formats ..."

 -- http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/issues/20


One of the WCAG 2 techniques demonstrates a common table format
using th/@headers, which, as of last June, wasn't allowed in HTML 5.

  @headers on th too or just td?
  http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2008Jun/0334.html
  -> http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20-TECHS/H43.html

The attached test case is derived from H43 (by machine; see
Makefile and extract-ex.xsl for details). validator.nu used
to complain about th/@headers; it no longer does...

The editor revised the design in December:

  Table feedback
  Ian Hickson 20 Dec 2008 09:21:53 +0000
  http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2008Dec/0175.html

  r2547

http://lists.whatwg.org/htdig.cgi/commit-watchers-whatwg.org/2008/001721.html


4.9.11 The th element
http://dev.w3.org/html5/spec/Overview.html#the-th-element


As far as the chairs and I can tell, this new design addresses
the concerns related to issue-20 (though not the summary
issue, issue-32), so per ACTION-72 I propose the WG adopt the 20 Dec
design for table headers. Does anyone object?

I suppose it would be useful to follow the 'three independent'
pattern; I count the editor(s) and myself as two.
Chaals, perhaps you'd like to confirm that you agree?
Or Ben? Cynthia?

-- 
Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
gpg D3C2 887B 0F92 6005 C541  0875 0F91 96DE 6E52 C29E



Received on Wednesday, 11 February 2009 19:04:12 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 9 May 2012 00:16:29 GMT