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

Issue 92 Counter Proposal
=========================

Summary
-------
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.


Rationale
---------
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.


Details
-------
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.


Costs
-----
Minimal editing time to rearrange the content.

~TJ