Talk:SC1-3-1-tables-layout

Open issues

• Use different markup for elements. These blocks break up the readability
• Don't use the 'for each' expression. All steps are applied to the selected elements one by one
• Step 3: I'm not sure about the question "Does the table look like an actual datatable". Do people know what an 'actual datatable' is? And what does it mean for a table to 'look like' one of those? I think this question should be more explicit, though I'm not sure how to do it.

Wilco Fiers (talk) 10:39, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

• Step 1: Error message: Is a table containing structural markup necessarily a datatable? Should fail according to F92, but the wording should be refined.
• Step 2: Could also be a datatable missing table headers, a caption and a summary. Should it fail this test-case?
• The automatic distinction between data- and layout-tables is not really clear to me. Could also fail because of a datatable lacking structural markup.

Frank Berker (talk) 10:38, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

• Identifier of step 2 has the same name as step 1.
• Test mode missing in step 3.
• Why is step 3 context sensitive?

Twan van Houtum (talk) 9:05, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

• What about adding steps to check tables with capition/summary but their content don't identify the table.
• assumptions and selector: you can use Non-empty page for summary attribute
• step 2: I think there is no need to mention the selector again here
• step 2: If it is not clear enough that the datatable is a table that contains "tabular data", we need to make question and help text more consistent.
• The page missing status (with review) section.

--Kamyar Rasta (talk) 13:30, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Ready for review

None.

Closed issues

None.