W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html-a11y@w3.org > December 2009

Re: FW: CHANGE PROPOSAL: Table Summary

From: Joshue O Connor <joshue.oconnor@cfit.ie>
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 2009 10:28:03 +0000
Message-ID: <4B237033.5000307@cfit.ie>
To: Leif Halvard Silli <xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no>
CC: Laura Carlson <laura.lee.carlson@gmail.com>, Cynthia Shelly <cyns@microsoft.com>, HTML Accessibility Task Force <public-html-a11y@w3.org>
Leif Halvard Silli wrote:
> Laura Carlson, Thu, 10 Dec 2009 06:42:32 -0600:
>> Hi Josh
>> You wrote:
>>> Is this kind of 'sorting' mechanism necessary at all? And if so should
>>> it be separate disambiguated from @summary. If a sorting mechanism is
>>> needed I think this would be best. A sorting mechanism could be useful
>>> for dynamically generated tables I guess.
>> Excelent question, Josh.
>> If in fact a sorting mechanism is needed, a separate change proposal
>> for it would  seem to be in order.
> It is unclear to me what you and Josh are saying. Doesn't @orientation 
> also need a separate change proposal then? And aria-sort is part of 
> ARIA, so it would take a change proposal to *not* get aria-sort. Ian 
> said that information about sort order should be linked to something 
> that actually changes the sort order. I agree that something like that 
> probably needs a separate change proposal. However, no one has actually 
> proposed such a feature. The definesorder="" attribute that I suggested 
> is also only about information. (However, it gives slightly less 
> information than aria-sort, and thus would be less likely to get out of 
> touch with the data of the table.)

That may be the case. However, at this stage I don't want to conflate
the issues  at all - as I don't think this issue of @sort, or
@orientation is helping.


Received on Saturday, 12 December 2009 10:28:35 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:55:27 UTC