- From: <bugzilla@jessica.w3.org>
- Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2014 16:45:51 +0000
- To: public-html-bugzilla@w3.org
https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=24647 --- Comment #28 from Robin Berjon <robin@w3.org> --- (In reply to Leif Halvard Silli from comment #24) > (In reply to steve faulkner from comment #23) > > you opened a bug "Define table@border as explicit indication that the > > *borders* are meaningful" > > > > I have asked you to provide data to support this. The data I looked at > > didn't support this, the onus is on you to provide data to support your > > request. > > Steve, do you say that my critisism of your data is uniteresting to you? > Then why tell me should I interest me for your data? > > At any raate: I *have* already provided more analysis of your data than you > have provided. Please inform me whether my analysis is wrong. > > Btw, tt is fine that you emphasise *border*. However you said that your data > analysis related not to border but to ”data table”. > > ]] > can you provide data that there is a strong correlation between the presence > of <table border=1> and the table being used as a data table? > > I looked at the latest http://webdevdata.org data set and could find no such > correlation, in fact I found the opposite. > ]] Steve's data very clearly shows that there are tables out there with @border that are indeed presentational. Your "analysis" of his data mostly indicated that you don't seem to have a clear grasp of what a presentational table is. So, indeed, the onus is on you to show that a) this is not an issue and b) your proposal has merit. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the QA Contact for the bug.
Received on Friday, 28 February 2014 16:45:55 UTC