RE: [VE][64] document type does not allow element "TFOOT" here

Yes, I'm a government contractor producing weekly short reports in
printed, section 508 compliant PDF and HTML formats. Here is the URL of
one of them: http://www.oas.samhsa.gov/2k9/201/201AdHeroinTx2k9.htm

Thanks,
David

-----Original Message-----
From: Jukka K. Korpela [mailto:jkorpela@cs.tut.fi] 
Sent: Wednesday, January 06, 2010 3:17 PM
To: Lou King; www-validator@w3.org
Cc: David Peabody
Subject: Re: [VE][64] document type does not allow element "TFOOT" here

Lou King wrote:

> Unfortunately all of this discussion does not address David's (OP)
> real problem.

The real problem is far from obvious, since no URL was disclosed.

> As a U.S. Government contractor (I'm guessing) he needs
> to comply with all sorts of BS, including "Section 508" and I'm sure a
> requirement to write W3C compliant HTML; which it is obvious he can't
> do both. The suggestions that he not use <tfoot> may not be a
> contractual option.

Section 508 does not mention tfoot at all, as far as I can see. It just 
says, regarding tables:

"(g) Row and column headers shall be identified for data tables.

(h) Markup shall be used to associate data cells and header cells for
data 
tables that have two or more logical levels of row or column headers."

http://www.section508.gov/index.cfm?FuseAction=Content&ID=12

Nothing about table footers. And even for headers, no specific markup is

required, just that headers be "identified".

Anyway, if a markup problem remains, it is best discussed in some other 
forum. The validation point of view is very simple: _if_ you use <tfoot>
and 
if you use a published DTD that allows it, then the validator will check

that the <tfoot> element appears between <thead> and <tbody> elements - 
because that's loosely speaking that the DTDs say; more exactly they
say:

<!ELEMENT TABLE - -
     (CAPTION?, (COL*|COLGROUP*), THEAD?, TFOOT?, TBODY+)>

-- 
Yucca, http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/

Received on Wednesday, 6 January 2010 20:54:29 UTC