W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-gl@w3.org > January to March 2001

Re: Layout tables [ was summary attribute required? history.]

From: Charles McCathieNevile <charles@w3.org>
Date: Mon, 5 Mar 2001 17:45:12 -0500 (EST)
To: Kynn Bartlett <kynn-edapta@idyllmtn.com>
cc: "Leonard R. Kasday" <kasday@acm.org>, Al Gilman <asgilman@iamdigex.net>, William Loughborough <love26@gorge.net>, <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.30.0103051743170.8585-100000@tux.w3.org>
For internal XML representation it makes sense to use different elements, and
then to convert layout to an appropriate language - XFO, CSS, do some
linearisation on it, according to what you are doing with it. The question is
really one of how to deal with legacy technology. My personal preference is
not to continue its use - a new element will not work in the older browsers
that are the problem anyway, so we may as well just concentrate on getting
even better CSS support in new browsers so people don't have to worry about
it.

cheers

Charles McCN

On Mon, 5 Mar 2001, Kynn Bartlett wrote:

  At 3:24 PM -0500 3/5/01, Leonard R. Kasday wrote:
  >Or better yet, define a new XHTML attribute for TABLE, say
  >"purpose", with values "layout" or "data".  It would default to data.

  Might be better to create different elements for data tables and
  layout tables even.  (That's the approach we've taken for Edapta's
  ...er Reef's...internal XML language.)

  --Kynn


-- 
Charles McCathieNevile    http://www.w3.org/People/Charles  phone: +61 409 134 136
W3C Web Accessibility Initiative     http://www.w3.org/WAI    fax: +1 617 258 5999
Location: I-cubed, 110 Victoria Street, Carlton VIC 3053, Australia
(or W3C INRIA, Route des Lucioles, BP 93, 06902 Sophia Antipolis Cedex, France)
Received on Monday, 5 March 2001 17:45:31 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:47:09 GMT