Re: HTML WG needs complex tables with accessible markup

[some addressees dropped; let's try to hold down the cross-posting on 
this one.  -Al]

At 7:39 AM -0700 6 06 2007, Loretta Guarino Reid wrote:
>Gez, is the HTML Working Group only interested in HTML examples? I've
>come across complex tables of this sort in PDF.

HTML WG doesn't get to say.

Sorry to sound fierce.

PFWG is coordinating the response from WAI to HTML WG on this point.
Yes, irregular tables put on the web in PDF are germane.  We won't
necessarily have accessible examples.  But even if there are inaccessible
examples and no accessible HTML alternative, it is part of "What the
Web affords by way of information" to the TAB user.

Specific examples that are live on the Web now are sought. HTML
examples, both with and without accessible markup, are better. But
any 'irregular tables' that @scope would not explain successfully (if
implemented through to the AT user experience) are the particular
issue, as Gez said.


>On 6/6/07, Gez Lemon <> wrote:
>>Hi Gregory,
>>On 06/06/07, Gregory J. Rosmaita <> wrote:
>>>  aloha, one and all!
>>>  the HTML Working Group is in search of complex table examples, with and
>>>  without the accessibility features defined for TABLE in HTML4/XHTML1,
>>>  and the mother of all tables i know of is located at:
>>This table will be useful to the HTML working group (in its current
>>form, marked up correctly with just scope, marked up correctly with
>>just the headers attribute, and marked up correctly with both scope
>>and the headers attribute), but they're also after irregular tables,
>>where the headers for a particular data cell aren't necessarily in the
>>same row or column. Although this table is complex in that there are
>>multiple layers of headers, they're easily resolved using the scope
>>attribute. They need examples that can't be resolved with scope, and
>>requires the headers attribute to unambiguously associate headers with
>>data cells. They're aware that the headers attribute is better
>>supported by assistive technology than scope, but aren't convinced
>>that there is a need for the attribute, as every example they've seen
>>would work with just the scope attribute.
>>Best regards,
>>Supplement your vitamins

Received on Wednesday, 6 June 2007 15:00:57 UTC