- From: Laura Carlson <laura.lee.carlson@gmail.com>
- Date: Mon, 4 Jun 2007 15:52:20 -0500
- To: public-html@w3.org
- Cc: "Patrick H. Lauke" <redux@splintered.co.uk>, "Steve Faulkner" <sfaulkner@paciellogroup.com>
For your information...advice from Jim Thatcher. --On Monday, June 4, 2007 3:41 PM -0500 Jim Thatcher <jim@jimthatcher.com> wrote: Hi Jim, >> Would it be ok with you, if I forward the following to the HTML 5 >> Working Group? > Absolutely. ------------ Forwarded Message ------------ Date: Monday, June 4, 2007 3:41 PM -0500 From: Jim Thatcher <jim@jimthatcher.com> Subject: RE: id/headers --On Sunday, June 3, 2007 10:11 PM -0500 Jim Thatcher <jim@jimthatcher.com> wrote: > My bottom line: > It may be true that it is possible to restructure many complex data > tables by adding rowgroup or colgroup elements to the table and by > altering the spans of cells in such a way that the scope attribute > can specify the header cells for all data cells. I am not convinced > but it is true for some of the "classic" examples. > > That process is complicated and cumbersome. It basically requires > rewriting the table. Compare that with the headers/id approach. ANY > Table with ANY relationship between heading cells and data cells can > be defined directly by adding id attributes and headers attributes to > the cells - not touching the structure of the table. ANY table ANY > relationship. That is part of the reason why you see many examples of > simple tables marked up with headers/id when they are not necessary > and simple scope would work. > > The simple and algorithmic aspects of headers/id is why the screen > reader vendors all now support it and none support rowgroup and > colgroup. The algorithm the AT vendors would have to implement for > the scope/group approach is much more complex to the point that I > think it unlikely they would ever support it AND it would not catch > everything. ---------- End Forwarded Message ---------- -- Laura L. Carlson http://www.d.umn.edu/goto/webdesign/
Received on Monday, 4 June 2007 20:52:24 UTC