Re: Deliverable for Action 72 @headers

2008/8/23 James Graham <>:
> Al Gilman wrote:
>> On 22 Aug 2008, at 7:49 AM, James Graham wrote:
>>>  It also seems much more logical to insist that cells users wish the UA
>>> to treat as headers be marked as such in the source. This is, after all, the
>>> point of using a mark up language; to communicate meaning to UAs so that
>>> they can act on it.
>> This is thoroughly logical, but it's based on an over-simplified idea of
>> table semantics.
>> Here's a rationale for preserving the HTML4 design, with @headers
>> pointable at <td>:
>> The crux of the matter is that the (highest and best) meaning of 'header'
>> in <th> and
>> in @headers is subtly different.
>> 1) in <th> 'header' contains metadata pertinent to a collection of other
>> cells
>> 2) in @headers, the IDs in the attribute lead you to context
>> characteristics
>>  critical for orientation
> [...]
>> It is like:
>>  - the <th> contents tell you what question is being answered.
>>     This is a qualitative distinction
>>  - the key fields tell you which answer you are getting.
>>     This is pure iteration, with no qualitative difference
> I think I have a feeling for what you are trying to say but I also think the
> distinction is very subtle; I'm not sure that I have understood well enough
> that I could mark up a table in such a way as to correctly decide (in your
> definition) what should be a <th> and what should be pointed to by @headers.
> For example, in the table under discussion [1]

The table under discussion shouldn't be the one you're referring to. I
provided 3 examples for testing - two that were marked up accessibly,
and one that wasn't marked up accessibly. You're referring to the one
that wan't marked up accessibly. The table that should be under
discussion (the example used in the bug reports) is the complex data
table that uses headers:


Supplement your vitamins

Received on Saturday, 23 August 2008 20:03:51 UTC