Pete, what is the status? It would be nice if we'll get a consensus as soon as possible.
Alex. On Thu, Jun 25, 2009 at 8:49 AM, Alexander Surkov<[email protected]> wrote: > I agree it's bad to change terminology. So if "header" is table > containing cells used to describe data cells then rowHeaders isn't > suitable for us as well as rowHeaderList because it should be a list > of tables. Probably rowHeaderCells is a best. > > Alex. > > > On Thu, Jun 25, 2009 at 2:49 AM, Pete Brunet<[email protected]> wrote: >> Alex, Good point about the multiple row/col indexes referencing the same >> cell index. Symphony is the same. >> >> My first inclination was to name it rowHeaders but that was so close to the >> current rowHeader I thought it might cause confusion. We could name it that >> if there are no objections. I also don't mind the name rowHeaderCells. >> >> Pete >> >> Alexander Surkov wrote: >> >> I like these methods. cellIndex as an argument makes sense because >> it's unique identifier of the cell accessible, at that time different >> row and column indexes can point to the same cell if row or column >> spans are used. Also it's worth to consider "rowHeaders" or >> "rowHeaderCells" names instead of "rowHeaderList" because I think >> "headers" and "header cells" are more usual terms that "header list" >> one. >> >> Alex. >> >> >> On Wed, Jun 24, 2009 at 10:39 AM, Pete Brunet<[email protected]> wrote: >> >> >> Here's the update: >> >> HRESULT IAccessibleTable::columnHeaderList( >> [in] long cellIndex, >> [in] long maxColumnHeaders, >> [out, size_is(maxColumnHeaders), length_is(*nColumnHeaders)] >> IUnknown ** columnHeaders, >> [out, retval] long * nColumnHeaders >> ) >> >> HRESULT IAccessibleTable::rowHeaderList( >> [in] long cellIndex, >> [in] long maxRowHeaders, >> [out, size_is(maxRowHeaders), length_is(*nRowHeaders)] >> IUnknown ** rowHeaders, >> [out, retval] long * nRowHeaders >> ) >> >> James Teh wrote: >> >> On 24/06/2009 12:19 PM, Pete Brunet wrote: >> >> >> Why not use the cell index, which specifies both row and column? Or am I >> missing something here? >> >> >> That would work too. Is that preferable? >> >> >> To be honest, I don't really mind. However, other table methods seem to >> take a cell index, so it's probably more consistent. It also saves >> calling columnIndex/rowIndex unnecessarily. >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Accessibility-ia2 mailing list >> [email protected] >> https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/accessibility-ia2 >> >> >> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Accessibility-ia2 mailing list >> [email protected] >> https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/accessibility-ia2 >> >> > _______________________________________________ Accessibility-ia2 mailing list [email protected] https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/accessibility-ia2
