- From: Roberto Scano - IWA/HWG <rscano@iwa-italy.org>
- Date: Thu, 17 Jul 2003 11:07:47 +0200
- To: "Jens Meiert" <jens.meiert@erde3.com>, "Chris Ridpath" <chris.ridpath@utoronto.ca>, <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
- Cc: <www-html@w3.org>
----- Original Message ----- From: "Jens Meiert" <jens.meiert@erde3.com> To: "Chris Ridpath" <chris.ridpath@utoronto.ca>; <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org> Cc: <www-html@w3.org> Sent: Thursday, July 17, 2003 3:21 AM Subject: RE: [#293] Summary for tables > > > Using "class" may not be perfect but it will be used very infrequently (I > > guess) and defining this CSS class should not cause much hindrance to the > > author. > > > The idea sounds great, but I rather suggest a 'type' attribute for tables > (which really expresses the way it is used), like > > <table type="layout" /> > > thus implying e.g. an optional 'data' value. This is obviously no CSS > matter, and so there is no need for use of the class attribute, and the proposed > type attribute would clearly make a difference between tables used either for > layout or data -- solving an important Accessibility problem. > > By the way, if this attribute would be introduced you could pass on caption > or th elements (in layout tables), according to a real simplification (I am > no friend of these elements, either). > I've think also about this option but this must be approved by the XHTML Working Group and/or how could it be applied to the older version (HTML 4.x) ?
Received on Thursday, 17 July 2003 05:08:02 UTC