- From: Ben Boyle <benjamins.boyle@gmail.com>
- Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2007 23:52:26 +1000
- To: "Philip Taylor (Webmaster)" <P.Taylor@rhul.ac.uk>
- Cc: gonchuki <gonchuki@gmail.com>, public-html <public-html@w3.org>
Why not borrow wording from WCAG? Better still, limit ourselves to a short note regarding accessibility and link to the WCAG advice. http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG10/wai-pageauth.html#gl-table-markup http://www.w3.org/TR/2007/WD-WCAG20-TECHS-20070517/Overview.html#H51 I'd like to see the HTML spec focus on HTML. WCAG focuses on accessible authoring techniques. Strong links between the two will provide a much better resource for authors reading either document. On 8/23/07, Philip Taylor (Webmaster) <P.Taylor@rhul.ac.uk> wrote: > > > > gonchuki wrote: > > > A conformance tool could at least check the number of DOM nodes inside > > table cells and raise a warning if above certain number. I mean, may > > be a span or two are ok for visual formatting, but above that > > threshold the conformance tool should raise a warning telling the > > author to check that tables are not used for layout. > > On balance, I think a toning down is justified. If a conformance > criterion is not amenable to pass/fail validation, it should be > re-expressed as a desideratum, with perhaps a (shared) footnote > to the effect that it may be upgraded from "deprecated" to > "disallowed" when AI has developed to the point at which its > usage can be reliably detected by a programmable validator. > > Philip TAYLOR > >
Received on Thursday, 23 August 2007 13:52:31 UTC