[Bug 24647] Define table@border as explicit indication that the *borders* are meaningful

https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=24647

--- Comment #5 from Andrea Rendine <master.skywalker.88@gmail.com> ---
(In reply to Leif Halvard Silli from comment #4)
>Thus I doubt that it is fruitful to say that <table> for name-value pairs represents ”layout table” usage is fruitful language in a HTML5 context.
You are right. I used that term only because W3C spec talks about "allowed
layout tables". As a matter of fact, none of the tables produced as example
here are "layout", so from now on I'll avoid defining them that way and invite
anybody else doing the same. @border and data/non-data tables are unrelated.
And while everywhere pure layout tables must be discouraged (i.e. tables used
for 2-columns pages for example), tables with particular requisites for
readability need borders. Period.

>take a look at the table at the HTML WG’s Publications page: <http://www.w3.org/wiki/HTML/Publications>
I'm happy I hadn't seen it without borders. We are talking about readability
here! Whether they are data or not, some tables can't live without border and
that is the perfect example.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the QA Contact for the bug.

Received on Thursday, 13 February 2014 18:11:32 UTC