- From: Leif Halvard Silli <xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no>
- Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 19:58:10 +0100
- To: HTMLwg <public-html@w3.org>
In decision on ISSUE-129 ARIA mapping, several specific role combinations (such as <h1 role=spinbutton>) were forbidden. As consequence of ISSUE-130 layout-tables, it seems logical to make it non-conforming to use <table role=presentation> in combination with certain "semantic" table features non-conforing. Proposal: layout table should not contain any <th>, <caption>, @summary, @headers and @scope. Logically/Optionally, they should also not contain: any <tfoot>, any <thead>, more than 1 <tbody>, more than 1 <colgroup> or any <col>, since these features are primarily meaningful for semantic scoping/cell headinghiearchy navigation - layout-wise, they shouldn't be needed. Discussion: Combined with <table role=presentation>, an AT would not convey the above features' normal semantics. For example AT would not, I believe, make any use of @headers/@id or @summary or <caption>, if the table is presentational. And features with scoping effect are typically used to highlight the structure of data tables are thus also not meaningful in a presentation table. In combination with role=presentation, these features would make the table /look/ "semantic" and meaningful, whereas it in reality would be nothing more than - well - layout. Summary: a single layout table should only have a single <tbody>, a single <colgroup> and as many <td>s as necessary. Most 'layout tables' out there do only use those elements. If it were to become conforming to combine <table role=presentation> and <th>, then, at least in practical terms, we would expand the meaning of 'layout table' a good bit from the traditional view of what a layout table is. Thoughts? Could this proposal have negative consequences? E.g. are there times when it is meaningful to interactively switch a table from role=presentation to "table role", and vice versa? -- leif halvard silli
Received on Wednesday, 16 March 2011 18:58:46 UTC