w3c/wbs-design or
by mail to sysreq.
W3C
Site Navigation
Nearby
Results of Questionnaire ISSUE-92: Re-write the Table section to remove extraneous material, and provide cleaner description - Straw Poll for Objections
The results of this questionnaire are available to anybody.
This questionnaire was open from 2010-09-28 to 2010-10-06.
8 answers have been received.
Jump to results for question:
- Objections to the Change Proposal to Replace table description and examples with alternate example.
- Objections to the Change Proposal to Move table and examples to a separate section
1. Objections to the Change Proposal to Replace table description and examples with alternate example.
We have a Change Proposal to Replace table description and examples with alternate example. If you have strong objections to adopting this Change Proposal, please state your objections below.
Keep in mind, you must actually state an objection, not merely cite someone else. If you feel that your objection has already been adequately addressed by someone else, then it is not necessary to repeat it.
Details
| Responder | Objections to the Change Proposal to Replace table description and examples with alternate example. |
|---|---|
| Ian Hickson | I think it's highly inappropriate to use this change proposal as a "stealth" way to reintroduce the summary="" attribute, given how controversial that issue has been. |
| Tab Atkins Jr. | This Change Proposal misses the entire point of the example in the spec, which is to illustrate a table which has a structure that *can't* be easily and automatically inferred by just naively inspecting the first row/columns for headers, and thus actually has need of a structural description. Replacing the current spec example and text with the example and text given in this Change Proposal would remove important and useful information in return for a basic tutorial example. |
| John Foliot | Chairs, I find myself in a weird situation in that I actually support both proposals, but for different reasons. I support the basic intent of the "Move table and examples to a separate section." proposal as it makes good sense to place this type of authoring guidance in its own location within the specification - technically it is the better editorial choice. Thus I endorse and support this proposal. However, the 'counter proposal' is not really a counter proposal regarding the placement of the advisory text, but rather of the nature and content of that advisory text. It is my belief that the advisory text supplied in this Change Proposal is, in general, better than the current text, and thus I support and endorse the adoption of this text over the current text, as the proposed revised text is technically superior to the current text, as it more closely resembles real world examples. I dismiss the editor's complaints that this is somehow a back-door re-insertion of the @summary attribute into HTML5, as @summary *is* in HTML5, albeit in a weird twilight zone of conformant but obsolete that triggers a warning (advisory) that there *may* be a better way to deliver this type of advice: "Note: The summary attribute, <em>defined in the table section</em>, will also trigger a warning." - http://www.w3.org/TR/html5/obsolete.html#obsolete-but-conforming-features (emphasis mine) However, since @summary *is* in HTML5 today, it is wholly appropriate to provide an example of how it is used, and how it should be written (if an author chooses to use this mechanism) Thus my <em>strongest objection</em> is to linking two different change proposals as addressing the same problem, as they do not. If pressed by the Chairs to choose one over the other, then I must pick the "Change Proposal to Replace table description and examples with alternate example". |
| Laura Carlson | |
| Henri Sivonen | I object to this change proposal containing a resolution to ISSUE 32 as a rider. |
| Martin Kliehm | The table example in the proposal is too complex. The text is more readable, but doesn't address large sections of what's included in the current spec text. Concerning more readable text, I prefer the following text from the change proposal over the current two introductory paragraphs: "The table element represents data with more than one dimension, organized into non-empty columns and rows. It is the primary component of the table model. "Tables are used for data display, only, and should not be used for layout purposes. In particular, users of accessibility tools like screen readers are likely to find it difficult to navigate pages with tables used for layout." Otherwise I can live with the text, given that the @summary discussion is a different issue. |
| Julian Reschke | I support the change proposal, but: - it should be clarified that inclusion of @summary depends on the outcome of ISSUE-32 - it may make sense to preserve some of the current text and move it somewhere else, as suggested by the other change proposal |
| David Singer | While supportive of good examples, there are problems here: - This proposal, in addition to changing the examples, changes the description of the table attribute in unrelated ways, and some of these changes are dubious. More specifically: -- "The table element represents data with more than one dimension, organized into non-empty columns and rows." -- this replaces a must-level requirement not to have empty rows or columns with a phrase not expressed as a conformance requirement. -- "Tables are used for data display, only, and should not be used for layout purposes." -- This sentence (replacing "Tables must not be used as layout aid") makes a false statement of fact about how tables *are* used in place of a conformance requirement, makes ungrammatical use of the comma, and replaces a must-level requirement with a should-level for no reason stated in the Change Proposal. - The replacement text is more vague about when additional structural description for a table should be provided, using the vague "complex table" instead of the more informative "tables that consist of more than just a grid of cells with headers in the first row and headers in the first column, and for any table in general where the reader might have difficulty understanding the content" - The replacement omits examples or even mention of additional techniques that could be used to describe a table's structure, besides the summary attribute. These techniques can be useful in a variety of circumstances, and omitting them makes the spec less useful to authors on the whole. |
2. Objections to the Change Proposal to Move table and examples to a separate section
We have a Change Proposal to Move table and examples to a separate section. If you have strong objections to adopting this Change Proposal, please state your objections below.
Keep in mind, you must actually state an objection, not merely cite someone else. If you feel that your objection has already been adequately addressed by someone else, then it is not necessary to repeat it.
Details
| Responder | Objections to the Change Proposal to Move table and examples to a separate section |
|---|---|
| Ian Hickson | |
| Tab Atkins Jr. | |
| John Foliot | Chairs, I find myself in a weird situation in that I actually support both proposals, but for different reasons. I support the basic intent of the "Move table and examples to a separate section." proposal as it makes good sense to place this type of authoring guidance in its own location within the specification - technically it is the better editorial choice. Thus I endorse and support this proposal. However, the 'counter proposal' is not really a counter proposal regarding the placement of the advisory text, but rather of the nature and content of that advisory text. It is my belief that the advisory text supplied in this Change Proposal is, in general, better than the current text, and thus I support and endorse the adoption of this text over the current text, as the proposed revised text is technically superior to the current text, as it more closely resembles real world examples. I dismiss the editor's complaints that this is somehow a back-door re-insertion of the @summary attribute into HTML5, as @summary *is* in HTML5, albeit in a weird twilight zone of conformant but obsolete that triggers a warning (advisory) that there *may* be a better way to deliver this type of advice: "Note: The summary attribute, <em>defined in the table section</em>, will also trigger a warning." - http://www.w3.org/TR/html5/obsolete.html#obsolete-but-conforming-features (emphasis mine) However, since @summary *is* in HTML5 today, it is wholly appropriate to provide an example of how it is used, and how it should be written (if an author chooses to use this mechanism) Thus my <em>strongest objection</em> is to linking two different change proposals as addressing the same problem, as they do not. If pressed by the Chairs to choose one over the other, then I must pick the "Change Proposal to Replace table description and examples with alternate example". |
| Laura Carlson | The current text is inappropriate and unclear. It should be replaced and a simple, clear, relevant example provided. The other change proposal does this very well. |
| Henri Sivonen | |
| Martin Kliehm | I object to this proposal since examples that are contained in the element description are more consistent with previous versions of HTML. It's easier for developers to find the example, as it is unlikely that someone will read the entire spec, but rather small sections found through search engines. Therefore it makes more sense to keep the information non-fragmented. |
| Julian Reschke | I agree that the text should be moved somewhere else (with the details depending on the outcome of ISSUE-32). I disagree that this is sufficient; there should be a good example for a table in the text (as suggested by the other change proposal) |
| David Singer |
More details on responses
- Ian Hickson: last responded on 28, September 2010 at 23:59 (UTC)
- Tab Atkins Jr.: last responded on 29, September 2010 at 00:02 (UTC)
- John Foliot: last responded on 29, September 2010 at 02:14 (UTC)
- Laura Carlson: last responded on 29, September 2010 at 08:04 (UTC)
- Henri Sivonen: last responded on 30, September 2010 at 12:10 (UTC)
- Martin Kliehm: last responded on 5, October 2010 at 09:37 (UTC)
- Julian Reschke: last responded on 5, October 2010 at 11:30 (UTC)
- David Singer: last responded on 5, October 2010 at 18:16 (UTC)
Everybody has responded to this questionnaire.
Compact view of the results / list of email addresses of the responders
WBS home / Questionnaires / WG questionnaires / Answer this questionnaire
Report issues
on GitHub project