- From: Nick Kew <nick@webthing.com>
- Date: Sat, 9 Feb 2002 19:32:58 +0000 (GMT)
- To: Jason Megginson <jason@bartsite.com>
- cc: <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
On Wed, 6 Feb 2002, Jason Megginson wrote: > Should I not use the scope > method for table headers? For **** sake, don't do that! If something is clearly a browser bug, then it's the browser that should be fixed, but if you start working to the bug instead of the standard, you'll just perpetuate it. Unless the browser bug is of critical severity, pandering to it is just another variant on trendy-1995 Netscapization. Scope is simpler, shorter and less error-prone than ID/headers. As a supplementary question: presumably where a table is sufficiently small, neither scope nor headers are required (a two-column table comprising one TH and one TD per row would be the clearest instance). How big does a table really need to be before the structural association of headers and cells becomes really necessary? -- Nick Kew Site Valet - the mark of Quality on the Web. <URL:http://valet.webthing.com/>
Received on Saturday, 9 February 2002 14:33:03 UTC