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

Re: Layout tables

From: William Loughborough <love26@gorge.net>
Date: Thu, 08 Mar 2001 16:29:15 -0800
Message-Id: <5.0.2.1.2.20010308162409.055c6600@mail.gorge.net>
To: Al Gilman <asgilman@iamdigex.net>, <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
At 05:39 PM 3/8/01 -0500, Al Gilman wrote:
>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 
>required for non-graphical interpretation of the contents, I expect we are 
>in trouble.

I'll drink to that! In fact that may be how most pages are built. We seem 
to be stuck on the idea that there are *real* tables and then there are 
layout tables, when in fact the former are merely an almost trivial case of 
the latter which, to most people with nerdlessness is what tables *really* 
are. So-called data tables in that view are simply one way to depict 
"stuff" which may or may not have the old row/column relationship. Just as 
spread sheets are used for a lot of unrelated to the usual, so tables are a 
conceptual entity usually described visually - but not necessarily so.

One of the reasons for eschewing "layout tables" (dumb access systems) 
probably isn't all that big a deal any more?

--
Love.
                 ACCESSIBILITY IS RIGHT - NOT PRIVILEGE
Received on Thursday, 8 March 2001 19:30:02 GMT

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