- From: Charles McCathieNevile <charles@sidar.org>
- Date: Tue, 14 Jan 2003 15:58:41 +1100
- To: jim@jimthatcher.com
- Cc: "'Matt May'" <mcmay@w3.org>, "'Jesper Tverskov'" <jesper.tverskov@mail.tele.dk>, w3c-wai-ig@w3.org
On Tuesday, Jan 14, 2003, at 12:17 Australia/Melbourne, Jim Thatcher wrote: > > But Chaals, there is no reason for a person to even try to have a > mental > model of the layout tables. They should be ignored by user and browser > alike. Layout tables do not have to be constructed so that they make > sense, only that the content makes sense when linearized. True enough in the simple case - a page with a couple of useful things on it, fairly easy to find. But this is not true when a page contains a number of useful things, in a complex layout - the user wants something better than just tabbing through the 60 things they don't want for one of the 36 they might use. The tabular layout is meant to make this easier, and can do so if it is as simple as possible but no simpler... > Yes, we're talking layout tables, not data tables. I have never seen a > nested data table (that made sense). They don't need to even in the case of large an complex ones, since HTML 4.0 which provided more powerful scoping structures. For the kind of simple tables that most people deal with most of the time the question is moot, but there are people working with complex information where it becomes relevant. cheers Chaals -- Charles McCathieNevile charles@sidar.org Fundación SIDAR http://www.sidar.org
Received on Tuesday, 14 January 2003 00:00:20 UTC