Re: operational concept for table browsing

to follow up on what Jason White said:

>                         What additional semantic content can a table
> contain which would not be captured in such a model? Perhaps Al could
> clarify the types of relationships between cells which he wishes to take
> into account, but which he thinks are not adequately representable in the
> existing markup repertoire.
> 

My current rough take on the situation is that there is inadequate
support for the "keys" kind of relationship as discussed in 

   more on TABLEs

   http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-hc/1997OctDec/0004.html

and that it's worth defining default rules and explicit markup to
support both this and its companion "is-a" kind of relationship
that I suspect is covered sufficiently with AXIS and AXES.  The
defaults can be made more effective if we have predefined class
names for row-major, column-major, etc. classes of tables.

That "rough take" comes with lots of caveats, like:

I need to do as you did and go over the current draft closely again.

I don't consider this message an explanation, just a pointer to
a potentially useful concept.

-- Al

Received on Saturday, 4 October 1997 23:12:14 UTC