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

On Fri, May 21, 2010 at 9:38 AM, Sam Ruby <> wrote:
> On 05/20/2010 07:04 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:
>> Issue 92 Counter Proposal
>> =========================
> I've recorded the counter proposal in the issue-status page, but I encourage
> you to consider improving the rationale and details.
>> 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.
> Please consider adding rationale as to why you feel that it is necessary or
> appropriate to illustrate a *confusing* table.

Because confusing tables exist, and authors need to be aware of good
ways to mark them up.

Non-confusing tables (which, luckily, are the majority of tables)
don't need any special help or summary, because their structure is

>> 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.
> It is your assertion that Shelley missed the point.  How does moving this
> text address that confusion?  Alternately, why do you believe that such is
> not necessary?

I'm not sure I understand your question.


Received on Friday, 21 May 2010 16:50:35 UTC