Re: Working Group Decision on ISSUE-130: table-layout

aloha, sam!

in your emessage to public-html on WG decision on ISSUE-130 (table
for layout) the following comment was made upon my comments logged
via WBS:

>      practically, i can live with this change proposal, PROVIDED 
> that:
> We only evaluate change proposals which actually were submitted.

i am confused by this response, as the point of the survey was to
solicit WG opinion on 2 competing change proposals intended to 
address issue-130, and, since i was asked for my comments and 
objections, i provided them, including what it would take for me 
to accept tables used for layout in HTML5, to wit:

practically, i can live with this change proposal, PROVIDED that:

2.1) HTML5 define a new global attribute "role";

2.2) HTML5 allows the "annotations for assistive technology" section 
to define the acceptable values for "role" and their association 
with HTML5 elements;

2.3) HTML5 specifically allows role="presentation" to be applied to 
TABLE markup;

2.4) HTML5 clarify that TABLE should not be used for presentational 
purposes, but that applying role="presentation" is allowed for repair 
of older content (both documents rendered by a UA and templates in 
authoring tools) and in cases where styling cannot be achieved via 
CSS or which lack a CSS engine

if these 4 conditions are met, it will mean that if a TABLE bears a 
role="presentation" and contains a FORM, the table markup for that 
TABLE should be thrown out by the assistive technology, so that a 
user of AT can use a "forms-mode" to interact with and double-check 
FORM controls and their states directly, even though they are 
contained in a TABLE, without the need for wrapping the actual HTML 
TABLE in a DIV with the role="form"

that isn't a Change Proposal but an attempt to define what would 
be necessary for allowing TABLE for presentation in HTML5 given 
the 2 change proposals the WG was specifically asked to review 
and comment upon -- why was my comment, then, simply dismissed 
with the statement: "We only evaluate change proposals which 
actually were submitted."

that answer does not suffice -- i WAS commenting on the change
proposals which were submitted; the introductory text on the
survey specifically states: "Keep in mind, you must actually 
state an objection", which i did in logging what would be 
necessary in order for me to accept TABLE use for layout in 
HTML5...  why, then, were my arguments so casually dismissed
when they DO actually state an objection to the change proposal
logged at:

You cannot depend on your eyes when your imagination is out of
focus.                                           -- Mark Twain
Gregory J. Rosmaita:
   Camera Obscura:
          Oedipus' Online Complex:

Received on Thursday, 10 March 2011 18:06:48 UTC