RE: HTML Table Markup

> If this is a question for WCAG2,
> should not the discussion take place 
> on the GL list and not the IG list? 
> 
Yes. This discussion should go to the GL list. Because of all the related 
discussion on the IG list I thought it best to begin here.

I feel the discussion has been fruitful though we have not reached agreement 
on all points.

I'll wait a couple of days to see if there's any more discussion here then 
post to the GL list some tests that cover this topic.

Cheers,
Chris


Quoting "Bailey, Bruce" <Bruce.Bailey@ed.gov>:

> >> Proposal -- [WCAG1] 5.1 requires the addition of header rows or columns
> for data tables, if not already present, for P2 conformance.
> 
> > I was seeking clarification for the WCAG2 because it will soon supersede
> the
> > WCAG1. This table discussion falls under WCAG2 guideline 1.3 (level 1,
> > success criteria 1). It's much more broad then 5.1.
> 
> Your definition of "soon" must be more optimistic than mine!  Otherwise, I
> agree with you entirely.  This result of this discussion of WCAG1 5.1 will
> certainly inform WCAG2.  However, we all have much more experience with
> WCAG1, and it is not entirely clear to me how this specific question is
> addressed by the draft language of WCAG2.  If this is a question for WCAG2,
> should not the discussion take place on the GL list and not the IG list? 
> Besides, how does a consensus definition for "small data table" help the
> WCAG2?  If you really want my clarification request to obviously apply to
> WCAG2, is it possible to please pose my proposal in a form that doesn't rely
> on the term "small"?
> 
> Thanks.
>

Received on Friday, 10 September 2004 22:01:50 UTC