On Fri, May 21, 2010 at 9:38 AM, Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net> 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 obvious. >> 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. ~TJReceived on Friday, 21 May 2010 16:50:35 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Saturday, 9 October 2021 18:45:19 UTC