[Bug 8449] Remove extraneous material from Table section

http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=8449





--- Comment #3 from Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>  2009-12-07 16:05:09 ---
(In reply to comment #2)
> (In reply to comment #1)
> > (In reply to comment #0)
> > >
> > > In addition, the use of HTML tables in figure elements is being discussed in
> > > another bug. It is against established practice and procedure to use data
> > > tables in figures. And since the only type of table supported in HTML5 is a
> > > data table, it's erroneous to use the table in a figure element.
> > 
> > It seems like the evidence of that bug was that it's quite common to have
> > tables in something label as a Figure. It also seemed to be quite common to
> > give a table figure-like presentation (matching the semantics of the HTML
> > <figure> element, but separately numbed as Tables instead of Figures. And
> > finally, other markup languages such as DocBook specifically seem to allow
> > tables in their figure element. Your counterpoint that tables in figures should
> > first be converted into an image seems poorly founded, and as far as I can
> > tell, no one else agrees that it is ever good practice to convert a table to an
> > image in HTML.
> > 
> > It seems misleading to reference the original premise of the bug as if it's
> > established fact, without citing any of that follow-up discussion.
> > 
> 
> No, it's not common. 

It seems like many examples were cited of tabels labeled as Figures, both
online and in real-world books and papers. Including books written by you. I
will grant it is a small fraction of figures, but it seems wrong to me to
declare it categorically incorrect. Furthermore, the case has been made that a
floating numbered table has the semantics of a <figure> in general, even though
often (but not always) they are labeled distinctively and numbered separately
from Figures proper.

I realize that you may ultimately disagree with these arguments, and where the
preponderence of the evidence lies. It just seemed misleading to me to ignore
the counter-arguments entirely and state your opinion as if it were undisputed
fact.


> And is typically against typographical style guides in
> print publications. Regardless, this section is Primer material, not
> specification material.

I think it's totally appropriate for the HTML specification to include usage
examples and advice, especially in cases where correct usage is tricky or where
a particular use case is not directly served by a single specific markup
feature.

I agree with you that a non-normative authoring guide of some sort is a good
place for advice, but I disagree that it's categorically wrong to have it in
the main spec as well.

By the way, earlier, you also said:

> This bug does not impact on the current discussions about the table summary
> attribute, within the HTML Accessibility task force.

But it seems this bug does impact that discussion, because the Change Proposal
for the table-summary issue adds to and edits the section in question. Most of
that Change Proposal would be invalidated if the section in question were to be
removed.


-- 
Configure bugmail: http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the QA contact for the bug.

Received on Monday, 7 December 2009 16:05:21 UTC