W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-ig@w3.org > January to March 2014

RE: H43 and header cell relationships

From: Jonathan Avila <jon.avila@ssbbartgroup.com>
Date: Thu, 20 Feb 2014 09:43:23 -0500
Message-ID: <8836aab2453a73b257dfcdfc4b79a7af@mail.gmail.com>
To: Pierre Dubois <duboisp2@gmail.com>, W3C WAI ig <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>

I'm always concerned when I see id and header attributes combined with the
scope technique.  I don't have data on this but I feel like the combining
of techniques could be confusing for AT to interpret.   If people think
it's a valid method and AT supported then it would be great to have a
sufficient technique created documenting the support.


*From:* Pierre Dubois [mailto:duboisp2@gmail.com]
*Sent:* Thursday, February 20, 2014 9:32 AM
*To:* W3C WAI ig
*Subject:* Re: H43 and header cell relationships

Does someone has completed recent test whether the implicit header are
supported by AT?

It seems to be allowed within the HTML5 spec. [1]

On Tue Nov 6 2012, Ian Hickson wrote:
> > About "headers" I wonder if this would be acceptable:
> >
> > <tr><th id="th1" colspan="2">MySection</th></tr>
> > <tr><th id="th2" headers="th1"
> > <tr><th id="th3" headers="th2" scope="row">+
> >
> > as for the third row, the th1 header is implicit from the th2 declared
> Yup, that is allowed and is defined to work as you'd expect.


Pierre Dubois

On Thu, Feb 20, 2014 at 8:51 AM, Jonathan Avila <jon.avila@ssbbartgroup.com>

Olaf, the first step I would do is to try to validate or disprove the
possibility of a nesting/serial access approach.  Is it possible to design
a table where a references b and b references c but a should not reference
c?  If that's possible then you can't rely on this serial type approach.


-----Original Message-----
From: Olaf Drümmer [mailto:olaf@druemmer.com]

Sent: Wednesday, February 19, 2014 5:19 PM
To: W3C WAI ig; Matt Tongue
Cc: Olaf Drümmer
Subject: Re: H43 and header cell relationships

I think I have to correct my statement:
HTML seems to require (as Sailesh points out) that indeed the headers
attribute of table cell has to list the ids of all the header cells with
which it is associated.

Sorry for any confusion my statement might have caused.

I nevertheless would like to add that I think that this approach is
conceptually wrong - nested semantic structure should be expressed via
nested representation of pertinent data / attributes. Even if one were to
agree though with my reasoning it's probably a bit late in the game to

have this addressed...


On 19 Feb 2014, at 22:46, Olaf Drümmer <olaf@druemmer.com> wrote:

> As far as I can tell, any cell should identify only its direct header
cell parents. Nested header cell relationships would then be represented
by nested use of the headers attribute.
> Olaf
> On 19 Feb 2014, at 22:09, "Tongue, Matt" <Matt.Tongue@nrc-cnrc.gc.ca>
>> When marking up a table with multiple levels of headings, is it
mandatory to always put all header cell IDs into the headers attribute of
a cell?
>> For example, if a data cell has 3 header cells, but the 2nd header
cell's headers attribute references the 1st header's ID, would it not
suffice for the data cell to just reference header cells 2 and 3, since
header cell 2 references header cell 1 (thus creating a relationship
already)? Or must every header always be identified for every cell, no
matter what?
>> Reference: http://www.w3.org/TR/2013/NOTE-WCAG20-TECHS-20130905/H43
Received on Thursday, 20 February 2014 14:43:57 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 13 October 2015 16:21:50 UTC