- From: Bailey, Bruce <Bruce.Bailey@ed.gov>
- Date: Fri, 10 Sep 2004 15:02:38 -0400
- To: "Chris Ridpath" <chris.ridpath@utoronto.ca>, <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
> In practice, I think we just discuss on the list until the screaming stops. That sounds exactly right! > We could include this exemption only for P1 compliance. > For P2, all data tables would require header markup. This sounds good, but... > Proposal - a small data table has less than 4 rows and less than 4 columns. > Proposal still on the table - small data tables do not require header markup. Okay, I started this discussion, does that give me any veto power? In any case, I move we suspend the discussion on the definition of "small". Such a distinction does nothing to move towards resolution of my initial question! I introduced the discussion of "small data tables" because it seemed to simplify the question. It has, instead, moved us to a tangent. I see no advantage to defining "small" at this juncture. Indeed, WCAG2 is struggling with threshold values elsewhere, so it seem prudent to avoid this distinction if we can. I request we consider the following clarification: Proposal -- 5.1 requires the addition of header rows or columns for data tables, if not already present, for P2 conformance.
Received on Friday, 10 September 2004 19:03:11 UTC