- From: Leif Halvard Silli <xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no>
- Date: Fri, 31 Jan 2014 16:47:12 +0100
- To: Steve Faulkner <faulkner.steve@gmail.com>
- Cc: "Jukka K. Korpela" <jukka.k.korpela@kolumbus.fi>, HTMLWG WG <public-html@w3.org>
Steve Faulkner, Fri, 31 Jan 2014 14:58:44 +0000 in reply to Jukka: >> So I think it would wasted effort to add informative text. > > lucky I didn't ask you to write it then :-) Right before that quote, Jukka also wrote this: > It would need to start with a definition of what “layout > table” really means – e.g., quite often even a table of controls and > labels for them is accused of being a “layout table”. Are you going to start with that? And is a table used to keep a form a “layout table”? What would the consequences of doing <table role="layout"> become for conformance checkers? (A warning message?) Even though everyone knows it is not the most semantic thing, there are authoring tools that specialize in designing Web pages via layout tables. If adding role="layout" would somehow cause validators to report such pages as non-conforming, I would say we have shot ourselves in the foot. Or are layout tables actually more accessible without the role="layout" tag? -- leif halvard silli
Received on Friday, 31 January 2014 15:47:40 UTC