W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > April 2011

Re: Working Group Decision on ISSUE-155 table-border

From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 15 Apr 2011 14:54:21 -0700
Message-ID: <BANLkTi=AbpLMc8Uii2HzySJO849-P9Q-kA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
Cc: HTMLWG WG <public-html@w3.org>
On Fri, Apr 15, 2011 at 2:51 PM, Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com> wrote:
> On Apr 15, 2011, at 11:30 AM, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:
>> On Wed, Apr 13, 2011 at 8:01 PM, Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com> wrote:
>>>  If this is a generic problem (that is, if tables in non-CSS UAs
>>>  should basically always have borders), then tying border-drawing to
>>>  an optional attribute which is *not* present on the vast majority of
>>>  legacy tables is completely the wrong solution.
>>>
>>> Only two solutions were proposed.  We only consider proposals which
>>> actually are put forward.  Furthermore, no substantiation is provided
>>> for the assertion that this is "completely the wrong solution".
>>
>> Note, this was not an attempt to suggest another solution, it was an
>> objection against the <table border> CP.
>
> Be that as it may, it remains the case that no substantiation was provided.
>
> If you have new information to provide, whether supporting arguments for the claim that this is "completely the wrong solution", or a new Change Proposal calling for visual non-CSS UAs to always draw borders on tables, then you may make a request to reopen the issue.

Does the rest of my email count as "support arguments for the claim",
given that I expanded my claim to make the substantiation more
obvious?

~TJ
Received on Friday, 15 April 2011 21:55:08 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 9 May 2012 00:17:28 GMT