Re: [#293] Summary for tables
"Roberto Scano - IWA/HWG" <[email protected]> Thu, 17 Jul 2003 11:07:47 +0200
| Newsgroups | gmane.comp.web.html.general,gmane.org.w3c.accessibility.guidelines |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <003f01c34c42$e6cad1b0$adc8fea9@lcdpc> |
----- Original Message ----- From: "Jens Meiert" <[email protected]> To: "Chris Ridpath" <[email protected]>; <[email protected]> Cc: <[email protected]> Sent: Thursday, July 17, 2003 3:21 AM Subject: RE: [#293] Summary for tables > > > Using "class" may not be perfect but it will be used very infrequently (I > > guess) and defining this CSS class should not cause much hindrance to the > > author. > > > The idea sounds great, but I rather suggest a 'type' attribute for tables > (which really expresses the way it is used), like > > <table type="layout" /> > > thus implying e.g. an optional 'data' value. This is obviously no CSS > matter, and so there is no need for use of the class attribute, and the proposed > type attribute would clearly make a difference between tables used either for > layout or data -- solving an important Accessibility problem. > > By the way, if this attribute would be introduced you could pass on caption > or th elements (in layout tables), according to a real simplification (I am > no friend of these elements, either). > I've think also about this option but this must be approved by the XHTML Working Group and/or how could it be applied to the older version (HTML 4.x) ?