2008/8/23 James Graham <jg307@cam.ac.uk>: > Gez Lemon wrote: >> >> 2008/8/23 James Graham <jg307@cam.ac.uk>: >>> >>> For example, in the table under discussion [1] >> >> The table under discussion shouldn't be the one you're referring to. I >> provided 3 examples for testing - two that were marked up accessibly, >> and one that wasn't marked up accessibly. You're referring to the one >> that wan't marked up accessibly. The table that should be under >> discussion (the example used in the bug reports) is the complex data >> table that uses headers: >> http://juicystudio.com/wcag/tables/complexdatatable.html > > OK, but I don't think this makes any substantive difference to anything that > I said. Have I missed something? No, you haven't missed anything. I just wanted the conversation based around the headers example if we're going to talk about the headers attribute. Although nested header elements do not feel right, I wouldn't oppose the idea, as it could provide the relationship necessary to work. All I care about is that we're able to markup data tables accessibly. Gez -- _____________________________ Supplement your vitamins http://juicystudio.comReceived on Saturday, 23 August 2008 20:24:18 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:48:43 GMT