office message
[Date Prev]
| [Thread Prev]
| [Thread Next]
| [Date Next]
--
[Date Index]
| [Thread Index]
| [List Home]
Subject: Re: [office-accessibility] Re: [office] Recommendation to deprecate the is-subtableattribute
- From: Richard Schwerdtfeger <schwer@us.ibm.com>
- To: Michael Brauer - Sun Germany - ham02 - Hamburg <Michael.Brauer@Sun.COM>
- Date: Fri, 22 Jun 2007 09:21:26 -0500
Thank you.
Rich Schwerdtfeger
Distinguished Engineer, SWG Accessibility Architect/Strategist
Chair, IBM Accessibility Architecture Review Board
blog: http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/blogs/page/schwer
Michael Brauer - Sun Germany - ham02 - Hamburg <Michael.Brauer@Sun.COM>
Michael Brauer - Sun Germany - ham02 - Hamburg <Michael.Brauer@Sun.COM>
Sent by: Michael.Brauer@Sun.COM
06/22/2007 02:20 AM
|
|
Rich,
I will put the topic on the agenda of the call on Monday. The call
logistics will be in the agenda I will send out later this day to the TC
mailing list.
Thanks
Michael
Richard Schwerdtfeger wrote:
> Hi Michael,
>
> The issue raised on the use of table:is-subtable involves problems
> arising during table cell merge and split whereas the structure and the
> cell number scheme gets lost to assistive technologies. So, it appears
> that your option covers that. Currently, the ODF spec. only highlights
> an example where is-subtable was used for merging. We have been
> following the discussion and there is an indication that
> table:is-subtable is used for other purposes. Can the group provide some
> woking examples as we are not aware of problems of it's use elsewhere?
>
> Hiro Takagi and Pete Brunet have offred to attend attend TC call to
> discuss the topic - just provide them the call logistics. I will be
> traveling to W3C meetings next week.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Rich
>
>
> Rich Schwerdtfeger
> Distinguished Engineer, SWG Accessibility Architect/Strategist
> Chair, IBM Accessibility Architecture Review Board
> blog: http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/blogs/page/schwer
> Inactive hide details for Michael Brauer - Sun Germany - ham02 - Hamburg
> <Michael.Brauer@Sun.COM>Michael Brauer - Sun Germany - ham02 - Hamburg
> <Michael.Brauer@Sun.COM>
>
>
> *Michael Brauer - Sun Germany - ham02 - Hamburg
> <Michael.Brauer@Sun.COM>*
> Sent by: Michael.Brauer@Sun.COM
>
> 06/21/2007 01:38 AM
>
>
>
> To
>
> dwheeler@dwheeler.com
>
> cc
>
> office@lists.oasis-open.org
>
> Subject
>
> Re: [office] Recommendation to deprecate the is-subtable attribute
>
>
>
>
> Hi,
>
> I have just noticed that my mail was confusing:
>
> First, I wrote:
>
> > What I'm wondering is whether we should
> > deprecate the attribute in general, or whether we should only deprecate
> > the use of this attribute for the purpose of merging cells.
>
> Later on, I wrote:
>
> > What the attribute does is to visually merge nested tables into the
> > surrounding table. If we consider this to be a reasonable feature, then
> > we should only deprecate the use of this feature to represent merged
> > cells. If we think no one ever needs this feature, then we may deprecate
> > it in general. I actually have a slight preference for the first option,
>
> That means, I have changed the order of option:-(
>
> So, my preference is to deprecate the feature only to represent merged
> cells, too.
>
> Michael
>
> David A. Wheeler wrote:
> > Michael Brauer:
> >> my understanding of the request is that the use of the is-subtable
> >> attribute defined in section 8.2.6 should be deprecated, but not sub
> >> tables in general.
> >>
> >> The reason is that, if this attribute is used in combination with
> >> sub-tables to represent merged cells, that these tables are not
> accessible.
> >>
> >> I do understand that argument, and therefore support the request to
> >> deprecate the attribute. What I'm wondering is whether we should
> >> deprecate the attribute in general, or whether we should only deprecate
> >> the use of this attribute for the purpose of merging cells.
> >
> > I recommend #2.
> >
> > I believe this attribute should be "deprecated" only in the sense
> that it should not be used to merge cells when spanning was intended
> instead. But it should NOT be truly deprecated (option #1), because
> having a table merge into a larger table is semantically different, and
> it's a useful sementic differentiation to make. The problem is not that
> the concept (fully merged subtables) is useless; the problem is overuse
> of one construct (subtables with hidden borders) when spanning was
> intended instead.
> >
> > --- David A. Wheeler
>
>
> --
> Michael Brauer, Technical Architect Software Engineering
> StarOffice/OpenOffice.org
> Sun Microsystems GmbH Nagelsweg 55
> D-20097 Hamburg, Germany michael.brauer@sun.com
> http://sun.com/staroffice +49 40 23646 500
> http://blogs.sun.com/GullFOSS
>
> Sitz der Gesellschaft: Sun Microsystems GmbH, Sonnenallee 1,
> D-85551 Kirchheim-Heimstetten
> Amtsgericht Muenchen: HRB 161028
> Geschaeftsfuehrer: Marcel Schneider, Wolfgang Engels, Dr. Roland Boemer
> Vorsitzender des Aufsichtsrates: Martin Haering
>
--
Michael Brauer, Technical Architect Software Engineering
StarOffice/OpenOffice.org
Sun Microsystems GmbH Nagelsweg 55
D-20097 Hamburg, Germany michael.brauer@sun.com
http://sun.com/staroffice +49 40 23646 500
http://blogs.sun.com/GullFOSS
Sitz der Gesellschaft: Sun Microsystems GmbH, Sonnenallee 1,
D-85551 Kirchheim-Heimstetten
Amtsgericht Muenchen: HRB 161028
Geschaeftsfuehrer: Marcel Schneider, Wolfgang Engels, Dr. Roland Boemer
Vorsitzender des Aufsichtsrates: Martin Haering
[Date Prev]
| [Thread Prev]
| [Thread Next]
| [Date Next]
--
[Date Index]
| [Thread Index]
| [List Home]