On Aug 29, 2008, at 2:36 PM, James Graham wrote:
Steven Faulkner wrote:
At yesterdays HTML WG issue tracking telecon [1], the issue of
headers
not being allowed to reference a td (in the current version of spec)
was discussed.
It was decided by the Chair (Chris Wilson) after discussion and
consideration of the pros and cons that the current spec should be
changed to allow headers to reference a td element.
Chris "took action item assigned to josh and will figure out how to
ensure edit gets made in timely fashion" [1]
"As explained in the Process Document (section 3.3), this group will
seek to make decisions when there is consensus. We expect that
typically, an editor makes an initial proposal, which is refined in
discussion with Working Group members and other reviewers, and
consensus emerges with little formal decision-making. However, if a
decision is necessary for timely progress, but after due
consideration of different opinions, consensus is not achieved, the
Chair should put a question (allowing for remote, asynchronous
participation using, for example, email and/or web-based survey
techniques) and record a decision and any objections, and consider
the matter resolved, at least until new information becomes
available." [1]
It seems to me that several aspects of this procedure have not been
followed:
* There is no need for a decision to be made for timely progress. As
far as I can tell not resolving this issue is not blocking other
parts of the spec nor is it blocking implementors.
It is a very serious problem if it is NOT blocking implementors. The
current draft has an abysmal headers association algorithm right now.
[1] Any implementor seriously trying to implement that algorithm is,
at best wasting their time, and at worst doing serious damage to
accessibility of existing documents.
* It is not clear that all the different opinions were adequately
considered. For example, I can see no evidence to suggest
consideration of my point that marking up the example table with
<th> for all the cells which the UA should treat as headers, and
modifying the automatic association algorithm to cope, is easier for
authors to understand and more likely to be done by authors not
specifically interested in accessibility [2]. Therefore, taking this
alternative approach will do more to improve overall accessibility
of the web than simple to spec, hard to author, solutions like
@headers pointing to <td> (this is related to our "Priority of
Constituencies" design principle [3]).
Whatever the HTML5 draft says for document conformance, the use of the
headers attribute to point to a TD cell is long established and much
existing content will be broken if the HTML5 headers association
algorithm does not support it. The question of whether document
conformance should permit a headers attribute to reference an TD is a
separate matter. Personally, I'm finding it difficult to come up with
an example where the approach you advocate wouldn't work. The question
is how important is it for authors to distinguish not only data from
header, but also data acting as header (or header acting as data to
put it another way). Also I think the hierarchical headers (where a
[EMAIL PROTECTED] points to another [EMAIL PROTECTED]) is much more valuable than the
legacy approach. In any event the draft should either remove the
current headers association algorithm (which is an embarrassment to
this WG) or replace it immediately with the algorithm you and Ben
implemented (or better with the legacy @headers -> TD support that we
cannot drop and still follow our design principles).
* A telecon does not allow for asynchronous participation.
Agree, but the editor has said he also has no interest in following
the policies and procedures of the WG (saying deliberations of the WG
are merely advisory in the editor's view), so I think WG members and
the WG chairs are struggling to find a way to be effective in the face
of a defiant editor. It makes the co-chairs appear weak if there is no
way for them to direct the process: neither through the WG email list,
nor the teleconferences. The W3C process depends on strong chairs
(especially with an uncooperative editor).
Take care,
Rob
[1]: <http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/#header-and-data-cell-semantics
>
