Re: revised table headers design is OK, right?

On Thu, 12 Feb 2009 10:46:43 +0100, James Graham <jgraham@opera.com> wrote:

>
> Charles McCathieNevile wrote:
>> 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?
>
> The table inspector says "Australia Melbourne Buses Red" [1], but I make  
> no promises whatsoever about it being bug free.

OK, that was what I hoped it would be, but my attempts to read the  
algorithm in the spec didn't come out like that. Can anyone confirm or  
deny that the implementation is doing what the algorithm suggests?

If so I think we are definitely closing in. I will write a few more tests,  
run them in the inspector to get a provisional understanding, and post  
some more results. (Ah standards work... and people wonder why it takes  
time :) ).

> FWIW although I am not the droid that DanC was looking for, in my  
> limited testing the current algorithm seems to work well; comparably  
> well to the Smart Headers algorithm and with the advantage of assigning  
> row/column status to headers which is apparently an implementation  
> requirement. The previous proviso about the bugginess of the table  
> inspector still applies; if the design is stabilizing it would be good  
> to get some testcases for this area of the spec.

An added bonus that will come from me testing to see what happens :)

> [1] http://tinyurl.com/b7t7wu

/me slaps himself for not running that before.

cheers

Chaals

-- 
Charles McCathieNevile  Opera Software, Standards Group
     je parle français -- hablo español -- jeg lærer norsk
http://my.opera.com/chaals       Try Opera: http://www.opera.com

Received on Thursday, 12 February 2009 10:27:14 UTC