Skip to content
Permalink
Browse files

[e] (0) apply wg decision

Fixing http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=10963

git-svn-id: http://svn.whatwg.org/webapps@6006 340c8d12-0b0e-0410-8428-c7bf67bfef74
  • Loading branch information
Hixie committed Apr 14, 2011
1 parent 12efcdb commit 26203de199c78245b2cc6c35b0884a0d6d9db23e
Showing with 197 additions and 30 deletions.
  1. +55 −10 complete.html
  2. +61 −10 index
  3. +81 −10 source

</div>

<p>Tables must not be used as layout aids. Historically, some Web
authors have misused tables in HTML as a way to control their page
layout. This usage is non-conforming, because tools attempting to
extract tabular data from such documents would obtain very confusing
results. In particular, users of accessibility tools like screen
readers are likely to find it very difficult to navigate pages with
tables used for layout.</p>
<!--FORK-->

<p class=note>There are a variety of alternatives to using HTML
tables for layout, primarily using CSS positioning and the CSS table
model.</p>
<p>Tables must not be used as layout aids.

Historically, some Web authors have misused tables in HTML as a way
to control their page layout. This usage is non-conforming, because
tools attempting to extract tabular data from such documents would
obtain very confusing results.

In particular, users of accessibility tools like screen readers are
likely to find it very difficult to navigate pages with tables used
for layout.</p>

<div class=impl>


</div>

<!-- The paragraph below replaces the above one in the W3C copy due
to a WG decision. It is not used in the WHATWG copy for the
following reasons:

* "should not" implies that there may be valid reasons to use
tables for layout, which there are not.

* The second sentence appears to be grammatically incorrect, and
more importantly, does not clearly state that use of tables for
layout has always been a misuse. This implies it may have once
been correct (even though that is not the case), and that further
may reduce the effectiveness of advocacy on this topic.

* The third sentence (in the paragraph below) is identical to the
fourth one in the paragraph above except for comma usage which
seems incorrect (it implies that the users are the screen
readers, as opposed to the tools, if I'm reading it right).

* The final sentence below flat out legitimizes layout tables.

* The paragraph below seems to assume that only ARIA-enabled ATs
are a concern, when in fact there are numerous UAs other than
ARIA-enabled ATs that are harmed by this use of layout tables.

* The paragraph below fails to suggest that UAs will need
heuristics to deal with the existing content.

* The text below actually contradicts other requirements in this
specification (<table>s represent tables, and elements must be
used per their semantics, so the requirement that tables not be
used for layout is in fact technically redundant, and the
paragraph below doesn't change that).

* There really is no good reason to use tables for layout anymore,
and conformance criteria should support best practices, not
obsolete authoring practices.

-->


<p class=note>There are a variety of alternatives to using HTML
tables for layout, primarily using CSS positioning and the CSS table
model.</p>

<p>Tables have rows, columns, and cells given by their descendants.
The rows and columns form a grid; a table's cells must completely
cover that grid without overlap.</p>
71 index
contradict this specification because of <a href=http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2011Feb/0407.html>a
working group decision from Februray 2011</a>.</li><!--HPAAIG-->

<li>The W3C version has different prose regarding the use of tables
for layout purposes because of <a href=http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2011Mar/0245.html>a
working group decision from March 2011</a>. In contrast, this
specification unambiguously disallows the use of <code><a href=#the-table-element>table</a></code>
elements for layout purposes.</li>

</ul><p>Features that are part of HTML (and this specification) but that
are currently published as separate specifications as well, and are
not included in the W3C HTML5 specification, consist of:</p>

</div>

<p>Tables must not be used as layout aids. Historically, some Web
authors have misused tables in HTML as a way to control their page
layout. This usage is non-conforming, because tools attempting to
extract tabular data from such documents would obtain very confusing
results. In particular, users of accessibility tools like screen
readers are likely to find it very difficult to navigate pages with
tables used for layout.</p>
<!--FORK-->

<p class=note>There are a variety of alternatives to using HTML
tables for layout, primarily using CSS positioning and the CSS table
model.</p>
<p>Tables must not be used as layout aids.

Historically, some Web authors have misused tables in HTML as a way
to control their page layout. This usage is non-conforming, because
tools attempting to extract tabular data from such documents would
obtain very confusing results.

In particular, users of accessibility tools like screen readers are
likely to find it very difficult to navigate pages with tables used
for layout.</p>

<div class=impl>


</div>

<!-- The paragraph below replaces the above one in the W3C copy due
to a WG decision. It is not used in the WHATWG copy for the
following reasons:

* "should not" implies that there may be valid reasons to use
tables for layout, which there are not.

* The second sentence appears to be grammatically incorrect, and
more importantly, does not clearly state that use of tables for
layout has always been a misuse. This implies it may have once
been correct (even though that is not the case), and that further
may reduce the effectiveness of advocacy on this topic.

* The third sentence (in the paragraph below) is identical to the
fourth one in the paragraph above except for comma usage which
seems incorrect (it implies that the users are the screen
readers, as opposed to the tools, if I'm reading it right).

* The final sentence below flat out legitimizes layout tables.

* The paragraph below seems to assume that only ARIA-enabled ATs
are a concern, when in fact there are numerous UAs other than
ARIA-enabled ATs that are harmed by this use of layout tables.

* The paragraph below fails to suggest that UAs will need
heuristics to deal with the existing content.

* The text below actually contradicts other requirements in this
specification (<table>s represent tables, and elements must be
used per their semantics, so the requirement that tables not be
used for layout is in fact technically redundant, and the
paragraph below doesn't change that).

* There really is no good reason to use tables for layout anymore,
and conformance criteria should support best practices, not
obsolete authoring practices.

-->


<p class=note>There are a variety of alternatives to using HTML
tables for layout, primarily using CSS positioning and the CSS table
model.</p>

<p>Tables have rows, columns, and cells given by their descendants.
The rows and columns form a grid; a table's cells must completely
cover that grid without overlap.</p>
91 source
@@ -137,6 +137,13 @@
href="http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2011Feb/0407.html">a
working group decision from Februray 2011</a>.</li><!--HPAAIG-->

<li>The W3C version has different prose regarding the use of tables
for layout purposes because of <a
href="http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2011Mar/0245.html">a
working group decision from March 2011</a>. In contrast, this
specification unambiguously disallows the use of <code>table</code>
elements for layout purposes.</li>

</ul>

<p>Features that are part of HTML (and this specification) but that

</div>

<p>Tables must not be used as layout aids. Historically, some Web
authors have misused tables in HTML as a way to control their page
layout. This usage is non-conforming, because tools attempting to
extract tabular data from such documents would obtain very confusing
results. In particular, users of accessibility tools like screen
readers are likely to find it very difficult to navigate pages with
tables used for layout.</p>
<!--END w3c-html--><!--FORK-->

<p class="note">There are a variety of alternatives to using HTML
tables for layout, primarily using CSS positioning and the CSS table
model.</p>
<p>Tables must not be used as layout aids.

Historically, some Web authors have misused tables in HTML as a way
to control their page layout. This usage is non-conforming, because
tools attempting to extract tabular data from such documents would
obtain very confusing results.

In particular, users of accessibility tools like screen readers are
likely to find it very difficult to navigate pages with tables used
for layout.</p>

<div class="impl">


</div>

<!-- The paragraph below replaces the above one in the W3C copy due
to a WG decision. It is not used in the WHATWG copy for the
following reasons:

* "should not" implies that there may be valid reasons to use
tables for layout, which there are not.

* The second sentence appears to be grammatically incorrect, and
more importantly, does not clearly state that use of tables for
layout has always been a misuse. This implies it may have once
been correct (even though that is not the case), and that further
may reduce the effectiveness of advocacy on this topic.

* The third sentence (in the paragraph below) is identical to the
fourth one in the paragraph above except for comma usage which
seems incorrect (it implies that the users are the screen
readers, as opposed to the tools, if I'm reading it right).

* The final sentence below flat out legitimizes layout tables.

* The paragraph below seems to assume that only ARIA-enabled ATs
are a concern, when in fact there are numerous UAs other than
ARIA-enabled ATs that are harmed by this use of layout tables.

* The paragraph below fails to suggest that UAs will need
heuristics to deal with the existing content.

* The text below actually contradicts other requirements in this
specification (<table>s represent tables, and elements must be
used per their semantics, so the requirement that tables not be
used for layout is in fact technically redundant, and the
paragraph below doesn't change that).

* There really is no good reason to use tables for layout anymore,
and conformance criteria should support best practices, not
obsolete authoring practices.

-->

<!--END html--><!--END complete--><!--END epub--><!--END dev-html--><!--START w3c-html--><!--FORK-->

<p>Tables should not be used as layout aids.

Historically, many Web authors have tables in HTML as a way to
control their page layout making it difficult to extract tabular
data from such documents.

In particular, users of accessibility tools, like screen readers,
are likely to find it very difficult to navigate pages with tables
used for layout.

If a table is to be used for layout it must be marked with the
attribute role="presentation" for a user agent to properly represent
the table to an assistive technology and to properly convey the
intent of the author to tools that wish to extract tabular data from
the document.</p>

<!--START html--><!--START complete--><!--START epub--><!--START dev-html--><!--FORK-->

<p class="note">There are a variety of alternatives to using HTML
tables for layout, primarily using CSS positioning and the CSS table
model.</p>

<p>Tables have rows, columns, and cells given by their descendants.
The rows and columns form a grid; a table's cells must completely
cover that grid without overlap.</p>

0 comments on commit 26203de

Please sign in to comment.
You can’t perform that action at this time.