W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-html@w3.org > July 2003

Re: [#293] Summary for tables

From: Roberto Scano - IWA/HWG <rscano@iwa-italy.org>
Date: Thu, 17 Jul 2003 11:07:47 +0200
Message-ID: <003f01c34c42$e6cad1b0$adc8fea9@lcdpc>
To: "Jens Meiert" <jens.meiert@erde3.com>, "Chris Ridpath" <chris.ridpath@utoronto.ca>, <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Cc: <www-html@w3.org>

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Jens Meiert" <jens.meiert@erde3.com>
To: "Chris Ridpath" <chris.ridpath@utoronto.ca>; <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Cc: <www-html@w3.org>
Sent: Thursday, July 17, 2003 3:21 AM
Subject: RE: [#293] Summary for tables

> > Using "class" may not be perfect but it will be used very infrequently
> > guess) and defining this CSS class should not cause much hindrance to
> > author.
> The idea sounds great, but I rather suggest a 'type' attribute for tables
> (which really expresses the way it is used), like
>    <table type="layout" />
> thus implying e.g. an optional 'data' value. This is obviously no CSS
> matter, and so there is no need for use of the class attribute, and the
> type attribute would clearly make a difference between tables used either
> layout or data -- solving an important Accessibility problem.
> By the way, if this attribute would be introduced you could pass on
> or th elements (in layout tables), according to a real simplification (I
> no friend of these elements, either).

I've think also about this option but this must be approved by the XHTML
Working Group and/or how could it be applied to the older version (HTML 4.x)
Received on Thursday, 17 July 2003 05:08:02 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:06:04 UTC