- From: Tina Holmboe <tina@greytower.net>
- Date: Mon, 13 Sep 2004 10:38:01 +0200 (CEST)
- To: w3c-wai-ig@w3.org
On 12 Sep, Phill Jenkins wrote: > No. Could we agree that a simple 3x2 table is not a "data" table, but is > in fact just a layout table? Even though it has some names and phone No, we cannot - and should not - agree that any, generic, 3x2 table is not a data table. The fact is that the moment you put <table> in your code, you ARE creating a data table. Anything else would be illogical, make no sense, and be inconsistent. I fail to see why this is such a problem. Table-based, or more correctly *grid* based layouts, are, in the context of the web, only needed for visual purposes. We really don't need to keep wandering down that path. Can we once and for all *end* this discussion ? Tables are for tabular data; regardless. Let's just leave it at that. It *is* 2004, and this discussion should have been left in the dark 90ies. If an automated checker encounters a <table> without any <th>, then we flag that as (a) potential incorrect use of tables, and (b) missing table headers. > numbers in it doesn't require it to have heading to be understood, just as > long as the name and phone number are in the same row - that's all that is > required for the sighted and screen reader users to make sense out of it. That's all *you* need to make sense of it. Are you certain you wish to speak for every user, regardless of ability, on the topic ? I certainly don't feel up to it. -- - Tina Holmboe Greytower Technologies tina@greytower.net http://www.greytower.net/ [+46] 0708 557 905
Received on Monday, 13 September 2004 08:38:13 UTC