- From: Shelley Powers <shelley.just@gmail.com>
- Date: Mon, 12 Apr 2010 21:57:50 -0500
- To: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- Cc: HTMLWG WG <public-html@w3.org>
On Mon, Apr 12, 2010 at 7:40 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com> wrote: > On Mon, Apr 12, 2010 at 5:27 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com> wrote: >> I find nothing objectionable in this Change Proposal, and agree that >> the example table used in the spec is somewhat contrived and >> unrealistic. The example table given in this Change Proposal seems >> more realistic, exhibiting useful complexity without being >> overwhelming. > > On second review, I have to retract my statement that there is > "nothing objectionable". The table itself is generally acceptable as > an example of a table. > > However, I had skipped over the part where the @summary attribute is > reintroduced, and given an explanatory paragraph. That is not > relevant to the Issue at hand, and given the current state of the > @summary attribute, should be removed. If @summary is later > reintroduced as a valid attribute in HTML, the example may be amended. Rather than address this one before @summary, I believe the co-chairs should resolve the issues related to @summary, first, and then we can revisit this change proposal. Co-chairs? > > As well, as a technical detail, a footer for the table should not go > in a cell of the table. That is an abuse of table semantics. It > should appear in text surrounding the table. > > ~TJ > Shelley
Received on Tuesday, 13 April 2010 02:58:23 UTC