Re: ISSUE-92 cleanuptable - Chairs Solicit Alternate Proposals or Counter-Proposals

Issue 92 Counter Proposal

The current text in the spec is adequate, but misplaced.  This
information and the examples are useful information for authors
dealing with a non-intuitive table, but it does not belong directly in
the definition of the <table> element, as it is only tangentially
related to the element itself.  It should be placed in a separate
subsection of the spec, near the <table> element.

The example table code given in the original Change Proposal misses
the point of this section of text; it is not meant to illustrate the
structure of a table, but rather to illustrate a *confusing* table
that may be difficult to automatically deduce the correct heading/cell
relationships out of.  Producing a simple, clear table with
well-placed header cells defeats the purpose of this section.  While
an clear example of a table with an explanation of each part may be
useful on its own, it is not appropriate to use to replace the
disputed text in the spec.

Move the text, starting with "There are a variety of ways..." and
ending just before "The summary attribute on table elements...", from
its current location to a new subsection placed after the current
"4.9.13 Examples" section.

In its place, at the end of the previous paragraph, place a sentence
explaining that guidance for this case can be found in the new
section, with a link to that section.

Positive Effects
This guidance about ways to explain the structure of a confusing table
is maintained, and further no longer distracts from the main thrust of
this section, which is to explain the <table> element itself.

Negative Effects
Now that the advice is in a somewhat more remote section of the spec,
it is possible that less authors will see it.

Minimal editing time to rearrange the content.


Received on Thursday, 20 May 2010 23:04:54 UTC