Re: revised table headers design is OK, right?

On Wed, 11 Feb 2009 20:04:02 +0100, Dan Connolly <> wrote:

> We have been tracking a table-headers issue-20 since 2007-11-21:
>  --
>   Table feedback
>   Ian Hickson 20 Dec 2008 09:21:53 +0000
> 4.9.11 The th element
> As far as the chairs and I can tell, this new design addresses
> the concerns related to issue-20 (though not the summary
> issue, issue-32), so per ACTION-72 I propose the WG adopt the 20 Dec
> design for table headers. Does anyone object?
> I suppose it would be useful to follow the 'three independent'
> pattern; I count the editor(s) and myself as two.
> Chaals, perhaps you'd like to confirm that you agree?
> Or Ben? Cynthia?

Hmmm. If I understand the current design, I think it is OK - but I find  
the algorithm pretty heavy reading, and I would like to work through a  
couple of examples to be certain. (Since I think that those examples would  
make the spec a lot clearer, I will try to write them up, but I won't take  
an action to do so since I am behind on my day-job already). I would  
rather not be the third until I have done that, so you are still looking.

Trying to step through it for half an hour did my head in at this time of  
day, and I couldn't easily print out the relevant bit so I could set  
myself up with enough registers to be a computer. So instead, can anyone  
explain what are the headers for the cell whose content is "cell 2 2" in  
the attached table?



Charles McCathieNevile  Opera Software, Standards Group
     je parle français -- hablo español -- jeg lærer norsk       Try Opera:

Received on Wednesday, 11 February 2009 20:18:30 UTC