- From: Philip TAYLOR <Philip-and-LeKhanh@Royal-Tunbridge-Wells.Org>
- Date: Sun, 01 Mar 2009 10:33:10 +0000
- CC: HTMLWG WG <public-html@w3.org>, W3C WAI-XTECH <wai-xtech@w3.org>
[All individuals removed from CC list] Composite reply, having watched the debate silently so far : Leif Halvard Silli wrote: > This is also related to how sighted persons perceive a table. We > perceive it as a collections of cells, in different relationships. To us > there is one "cell" - or place - that relates to all the cells, and that > is the caption. To add a summary for the table container becomes a > little bit ... abstract. But we are not discussing where the summary should appear visually; we are discussing where it should appear in the markup. And in the markup, <TABLE> is the 'one "cell" - or place - that relates to all the cells', so it is surely as an attribute of <TABLE> that "summary" should appear. Gez Lemon wrote : > A better approach to explicitly identify layout tables would be to use > explicit markup, rather than interfering with an attribute whose > primary purpose is to provide guidance on how to read a data table for > people with vision impairments. Using role="presentation" on a layout > table is infinitely better overloading the definition of the summary > attribute. Why is 'role="presentation"' preferable to 'role="layout"' here ? I would have thought that the latter would be more transparent to authors. Ian Hickson wrote : > The spec does in fact currently prohibit [the use of layout tables], > explicitly, several times. Then I think this aspect of the specification should be re-visited. I believe that the specification should set out to address what is, and what is not, syntactically valid HTML; I do not think that it should attempt to define what is /semantically/ valid HTML, though it should most certainly provide informative guidance on the latter. Philip TAYLOR
Received on Sunday, 1 March 2009 10:33:57 UTC