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

Re: Layout tables

From: Al Gilman <asgilman@iamdigex.net>
Date: Thu, 08 Mar 2001 17:39:17 -0500
Message-Id: <Version.32.20010308154524.010cef00@pop.iamdigex.net>
To: <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
At 08:31 PM 2001-03-08 +0100, Kynn Bartlett wrote:
>At 9:48 AM -0500 3/8/01, Leonard R. Kasday wrote:
>>Are these simply aliases for the usual table elements, or do they 
>>have different semantics?  (I'd assume the latter, for you to have 
>>gone thru the effort).
>Some of both.  Mainly we need to have some tables which are handled
>some ways, and some handled others.
>>Would you be interested in offering these as an HXTML module?
>I dunno.  XHTML modularization has never thrilled me. ;)  I'll have
>to take a look at what I can and can't offer up publicly.


1.  XHTML modularization and loose vs. strict TABLEs.  Think XHTML 2.0.  XHTML
1.1 is limited to what one can do with DTDs, and it consciously introduces no
functional difference from HTML 4.01. 

Also, I suggest we talk to Sean.

I believe that we need to be working with XML Schema and not DTDs to deal with
a taxonomy of structure categories where layout tables and tabulated data
relations both fit in in their respective places.

Schemas give us at least some mechanisms for type derivations, and derive
syntactic structures from structured types, that is to say structured patterns
of data values.  That is hopeful.  Building subtypes of table-like structures
with DTD tools does not appear to be a promising line of attack.

If in the future 'genuine' tables use Schemas to identify the types and
relationships of their contents, then layout tables will be distinguished by
the absence of schema information and we could be on our way to a resolution.

Layout tables are a handy technique for rapid construction of document
structure.  Until we have a replacement handy technique for rapid construction
of document structure to offer authors, I am reluctant to simply remove this
facility from the medium.  Charles is keen to give them the axe.

I believe we should be reviewing the tenor of current web design practice
as it
relates to the "structure to layout relation" employed on web pages in current
design practice.  If we can't allow an author to structure their work by
defining the layout structure first, then populating it with content for the
layout regions, and then answering a few questions that clarify points
for non-graphical interpretation of the contents, I expect we are in trouble.


>Kynn Bartlett <kynn@idyllmtn.com>
Received on Thursday, 8 March 2001 17:19:39 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 16 January 2018 15:33:36 UTC