Re: function and impacts (was: @scope and @headers reform)

Gez wrote:
> Nested headers aren't allowed at the moment, but if they are allowed
> later, how would the automatic associations for a th in the middle of
> a table work?

Good question. The headers attribute can reference a th, so if the tds
are changed to this in the example, the relationship would be
complete. But that isn't allowed in the editor's draft, as nested
headers aren't allowed.  It isn't allowed in the spec  for a cell to
be a th that is in scope of another th. That seems to make sense
because scope doesn't have start and end parameters. Nested headers
creates a new problem of what is the automatic scope association of a
th in the middle of a table:

Does automatic scope apply to the row (to the left?, to the right?,
both directions?), does it apply to the column (above? below? both
directions?), does it apply to the row and column and various
combinations? Would it require a scope, and how does that change
depending on reading direction? It's all undefined, and unnecessary,
as the headers attribute referencing a td works perfectly well.

Like I mentioned before, we have had approximately a thousand headers
messages to date on list:

@headers has been an issue since May 1, 2007 with  40 some threads.

I don't know what there is left to say. That is left to discuss?

How does the working group make a decision on this? The Charter states:
"...if a decision is necessary for timely progress, but after due
consideration of different opinions, consensus is not achieved, the
Chair should put a question (allowing for remote, asynchronous
participation using, for example, email and/or web-based survey
techniques) and record a decision and any objections, and consider the
matter resolved."

Best Regards,

Laura L. Carlson

Received on Thursday, 25 September 2008 11:46:39 UTC