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

Re: Working Group Decision on ISSUE-130: table-layout

From: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
Date: Fri, 11 Mar 2011 07:28:47 -0500
Message-ID: <4D7A157F.6090507@intertwingly.net>
To: "Gregory J. Rosmaita" <oedipus@hicom.net>
CC: HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>, HTML Accessibility Task Force <public-html-a11y@w3.org>
On 03/10/2011 01:06 PM, Gregory J. Rosmaita wrote:
> aloha, sam!

Hi.

Be forewarned, I'm going to dramatically elide large portions of your 
note so that we can focus on your first point.  Once we come to a common 
understanding on that point, we can revisit the rest.

> QUOTE
> practically, i can live with this change proposal, PROVIDED that:
>
> 2.1) HTML5 define a new global attribute "role";
> UNQUOTE
>
> that answer does not suffice -- i WAS commenting on the change
> proposals which were submitted; the introductory text on the
> survey specifically states: "Keep in mind, you must actually
> state an objection", which i did in logging what would be
> necessary in order for me to accept TABLE use for layout in
> HTML5...  why, then, were my arguments so casually dismissed
> when they DO actually state an objection to the change proposal

There is no question that you were commenting.

There further is no question that you are asserting that you can live 
with the proposal if additional conditions were also met.  Taken 
literally and conservatively, this no assertion is made about whether or 
not you could live with the proposal as is.  However, given that you 
capitalized the word "PROVIDED", it is reasonable to assume that you 
intended this as "IF AND ONLY IF".

Now lets explore what happens if each and every one of your five 
conditions were applied to the existing proposal.  What we would end up 
with is a different proposal.  I believe that you have accurately 
described what the practical implications would be if your conditions 
were met:

> if these 4 conditions are met, it will mean that if a TABLE bears a
> role="presentation" and contains a FORM, the table markup for that
> TABLE should be thrown out by the assistive technology, so that a
> user of AT can use a "forms-mode" to interact with and double-check
> FORM controls and their states directly, even though they are
> contained in a TABLE, without the need for wrapping the actual HTML
> TABLE in a DIV with the role="form"

So, I understand what you propose.  But let's be clear: this is a 
proposal.  It states what you would like to see.  It does not state an 
objection.

Finally, lets explore what happens if ANY one of your five conditions
were not met.  As I stated above, it is reasonable to assume that you
can't live with the proposal.  Per the W3C process, Dissenters cannot
stop a group's work simply by saying that they cannot live with a decision.

Net: if you have something to propose to this Working Group, you need to 
provide rationale.  If you have an objection, it SHOULD be accompanied 
by substantive arguments or rationale.  It can't merely state what you 
would like to see instead.

That being said, the W3C Process does allow for Formal Objections to be 
raised that include proposed changes that would remove the Formal 
Objection but do NOT include a substantive arguments or rationale.  It 
merely indicates that such are not likely to receive serious 
consideration by the Director.

Alternately, if you have new information, you can forward such onto the 
chairs for consideration.  This can lead to the issue being reopened.

- Sam Ruby
Received on Friday, 11 March 2011 12:29:21 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 29 September 2014 09:39:23 UTC