Re: [#293] Summary for tables

> As an added bonus they get one piece of the WCAG evaluation of their page
> done for free in a way that is automatically retrieveable...
>
Very nice. But, I still think that the simpler approach of putting the table
purpose in an attribute is more practical at this time.

> Right. So if we are talking about how to break the rule it seems that it
> mustn't be that effective...
>
The TH rule (data yes, layout no) is clear, simple and makes structural
sense.

My argument is that we should, as much as possible, provide a way for
authors to override our guidelines while still keeping their pages
accessible.

Cheers,
Chris


----- Original Message -----
From: "Charles McCathieNevile" <charles@w3.org>
To: "Chris Ridpath" <chris.ridpath@utoronto.ca>
Cc: "WAI GL" <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Sent: Thursday, July 17, 2003 10:41 AM
Subject: Re: [#293] Summary for tables


>
> On Thu, 17 Jul 2003, Chris Ridpath wrote:
>
> >> One technique that could be used is to make use of Semantic Web
> >technologies
> >> such as Annotea...
> >>
> >Yes, a nice solution but this may be beyond what the typical page author
can
> >currently do.
>
> If we insist typical authors figure it out for themselves it is probably
too
> hard (or impossible - some standardisation is an important part of making
> this work)
>
> But what I am suggesting will require them to assign an id to the table -
any
> value they like so long as it is valid (leaving aside title, class, etc
which
> they can use as they like) and then put the URI including the ID into a
box
> on a form and press go. That's it. It should be possible to st this up in
> most browsers, let alone editing tools, or make an ordinary online form.
>
> As an added bonus they get one piece of the WCAG evaluation of their page
> done for free in a way that is automatically retrieveable...
>
> >If we insist that data tables must have THs and layout tables can't then
> >this solves the problem.
> >
> >The only time you need to explicitly state the table purpose is when you
> >want to break this rule.
>
> Right. So if we are talking about how to break the rule it seems that it
> mustn't be that effective. The technique I propose doesn't conflict with
> using that rule, nor with breaking it...
>
> cheers
>
> Chaals
>

Received on Thursday, 17 July 2003 11:43:25 UTC