Re: SCOPE vs. ID/HEADER

>On Thu, 12 Sep 2002, Steve Vosloo wrote:
>
> >I've always used ID and HEADER attributes when creating accessible data
> >tables, but after reading the Access Board's bit for 508 compliant
> >tables, I might user SCOPE instead. From what they say SCOPE is as
> >widely recognised by user agents and it is definitely easier to
> >implement.
> >
> >Any thoughts on why we don't all simply use SCOPE and code our tables in
> >a tenth of the time?

Use ID and HEADERS.  SCOPE is still not implemented widely enough to merit
your relying on it at this time.

This was the report of Ken Nakata and Doug Wakefield to the
FedStats workshop of accessible tables as recently as the end of June.

  http://workshops.fedstats.gov/Nakata_Fedstats.ppt

  http://www.w3.org/2002/Talks/06/24-US_FedStatsWorkshop/slide1-0.html

  http://workshops.fedstats.gov/FS508Workshop.htm

The 508 materials you refer to are older, hopeful, and not yet valid as
reflecting implemented technology.  You should regard what Ken and Doug
reported to the FedStats workshop as a clarification with regard to the
earlier technical information from the Access Board.

Al

At 04:31 AM 2002-09-12, Charles McCathieNevile wrote:

>On Thu, 12 Sep 2002, Steve Vosloo wrote:
>
> >I've always used ID and HEADER attributes when creating accessible data
> >tables, but after reading the Access Board's bit for 508 compliant
> >tables, I might user SCOPE instead. From what they say SCOPE is as
> >widely recognised by user agents and it is definitely easier to
> >implement.
> >
> >Any thoughts on why we don't all simply use SCOPE and code our tables in
> >a tenth of the time?
>
>Browser makers implemented headers first, so that is what people started
>recomending. When browser makers didn't implement scope people got laughed at
>for suggesting using it (understandable really) with the result that people
>who write sites got given the hard way first, and had to wait for the simple
>solution to be useful.
>
>Unfortunately (but again understanably really) users don't change their
>systems very often. So you don't get to take advantage of the newer features
>(well in terms of implementation - these were all proposed in '96 or '97) to
>make your life easier until users go through the process of upgrading, unless
>you are happy leaving a whole lot of users in the cold.
>
>Chaals

Received on Thursday, 12 September 2002 08:25:04 UTC