W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > January 2011

Fwd: ISSUE-130 table-layout - Chairs Solicit Alternate Proposals or Counter-Proposals

From: Doug Jones <doug_b_jones@me.com>
Date: Fri, 14 Jan 2011 17:16:02 -0500
To: HTML WG Public List <public-html@w3.org>
Message-id: <7170D310-0775-49D5-B080-E313FD3920E0@me.com>

Begin forwarded message:

> From: Doug Jones <doug_b_jones@me.com>
> Date: 2011 January 14 16:41:55 EST
> To: Leif Halvard Silli <xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no>
> Subject: Re: ISSUE-130 table-layout - Chairs Solicit Alternate Proposals or Counter-Proposals
> On 2011 Jan 14, at 15:31, Leif Halvard Silli wrote:
>> Doug Jones, Fri, 14 Jan 2011 14:34:48 -0500:
>>> I fixed the problem I caused, and my proposal is at
>>> http://www.w3.org/html/wg/wiki/ChangeProposals/NoLayoutTable
>> Some comments:
>> FIRSTLY: The HTML4 yoru CP points to says 'should not' and not 'must 
>> not'. Thus it is incorrect to claim that HTML4 does not permit tables 
>> to be used for presentational forces.
> Yes, you are correct. However, I take it that since 1999 the 'should not' is a strong suggestion not to use tables for page layout.
>> SEONDLY: Those problems that HTML4 describes are much less relevant 
>> today. It is enough to look at the dichotomy that HTML4 describes - and 
>> which you echo: 'authors should use style sheets to control layout 
>> rather than tables'. As things have developed, this has become largly 
>> false dichotomy - exactly via CSS, authors can control tables. In fact 
>> is possible to read what HTML4 says as saying «rather than trusting 
>> tables, authors should trust css». Those problems which HTML4 describes 
>> are such that I have trouble understanding what the description is 
>> about - but it is more about function than about philosophy.
> I interpret it that the function of a table in HTML4.01 and HTML5 is to provide information in a specific semantic form. More styling for this purpose has been moved from HTML to CSS today. Just because a table can be styled via CSS doesn't mean it is part of CSS intended for gross page layout.
>> THIRDLY: No risks, you say. But perhaps there is a risk that authors, 
>> who could have increased their pages' accessibility by  adding aria to 
>> their table based pages, just let their pages be as they are, because, 
>> after all, their pages causes no error in theor current state, while 
>> they would get validation errors if they added aria to their tables.
> It sounds like you are assuming that authors who thought little of accessibility would go back and edit those pages now. Hopefully, they would want to, but there would need to be more work done than just marking the role of the page table. Changing the page table layout to sections would seem trivial in comparison.
>> As for the third, point, then I don't agree with myself. I tend to 
>> agree with Ian in that an honest @role is a 'godsend', which allows 
>> authors to check whether they have used an element for a valid purpose. 
>> Perhaps the solution is to place ARIA validation in another cathegory 
>> in 'normal' validation.
>> -- 
>> leif halvard silli
> I am not a professional web developer. Although my comments may (even to me, after feedback) sometimes seem naive, I believe they are a type that are important. I require a clear spec, and I view HTML5 (compared to HTML4) a godsend. It is people like me that have to have the opportunity of clarity and relative simplicity of explanation so we don't make a 'mess' of the web.
> With all the books I have seen concerning HTML5, CSS, Javascript, PHP, etc., I have yet to see one that integrates all of these, PLUS showing how to mark each tag for accessibility (other than an <img>).
> I appreciate the courteous feedback you and others have provided. It has always been constructive.
> -Doug Jones

Received on Friday, 14 January 2011 22:16:38 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Saturday, 9 October 2021 18:45:29 UTC