W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-gl@w3.org > April to June 2004

RE: [wcag2] Layout tables

From: Mike Barta <mikba@microsoft.com>
Date: Fri, 16 Apr 2004 11:08:56 -0700
Message-ID: <7DF35A0B5F67E84B9095C21C8A97641801F3F7E7@RED-MSG-33.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
To: "Yvette P. Hoitink" <y.p.hoitink@heritas.nl>, "WAI-GL" <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>

I would read this as joe did.  We say that one _must_ follow
specification, the specification says that you _should_ not misuse
tables, ergo we say that you should, but not must.

While I agree with the intent that made this should I would be wary of
requiring a must here if only due to the enormous quantity of content
that uses tables for layout.  Most of the content I know of is
tabliscious [heh, word tried to correct that to maliscious].  We should
consider if this 'must' would be an undue burden.

-----Original Message-----
From: w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org [mailto:w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org] On
Behalf Of Yvette P. Hoitink
Sent: Friday, April 16, 2004 11:01 AM
To: 'WAI-GL'
Subject: RE: [wcag2] Layout tables


Joe Clark pointed out:

> > Actually, at the moment we require in guideline 4.1, item 1b: [1] 
> > "structural elements and attributes are used as defined in the 
> > specification."
> 
> The specification permits layout tables.
> 
> > In the HTML specification for tables, the introduction states: [2] 
> > "Tables should not be used purely as a means to layout document 
> > content as
> 
> "Should not" does not mean "must not." 

If we explicitely require to use structural elements as defined in the
specification, to me that suggested that we require the authors to
follow the 'shoulds' from that spec. Perhaps the subtleties of the
English language are still somewhat beyond me :-)

Yvette Hoitink
Heritas, Enschede, the Netherlands
E-mail: y.p.hoitink@heritas.nl
WWW: http://www.heritas.nl
Received on Friday, 16 April 2004 14:09:13 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:47:29 GMT