W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > April 2010

Re: ISSUE-92 Change Proposal

From: Shelley Powers <shelley.just@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 12 Apr 2010 21:57:50 -0500
Message-ID: <m2i643cc0271004121957i70d276c0z82fff692c56a1d3a@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>
Cc: HTMLWG WG <public-html@w3.org>
On Mon, Apr 12, 2010 at 7:40 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 12, 2010 at 5:27 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com> wrote:
>> I find nothing objectionable in this Change Proposal, and agree that
>> the example table used in the spec is somewhat contrived and
>> unrealistic.  The example table given in this Change Proposal seems
>> more realistic, exhibiting useful complexity without being
>> overwhelming.
>
> On second review, I have to retract my statement that there is
> "nothing objectionable".  The table itself is generally acceptable as
> an example of a table.
>
> However, I had skipped over the part where the @summary attribute is
> reintroduced, and given an explanatory paragraph.  That is not
> relevant to the Issue at hand, and given the current state of the
> @summary attribute, should be removed.  If @summary is later
> reintroduced as a valid attribute in HTML, the example may be amended.

Rather than address this one before @summary, I believe the co-chairs
should resolve the issues related to @summary, first, and then we can
revisit this change proposal.

Co-chairs?

>
> As well, as a technical detail, a footer for the table should not go
> in a cell of the table.  That is an abuse of table semantics.  It
> should appear in text surrounding the table.
>
> ~TJ
>

Shelley
Received on Tuesday, 13 April 2010 02:58:23 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 9 May 2012 00:17:07 GMT