Re: [office-accessibility] Re: [office] Recommendation to deprecate the is-subtableattribute

Thank you.

Rich Schwerdtfeger

Distinguished Engineer, SWG Accessibility Architect/Strategist

Chair, IBM Accessibility Architecture Review  Board

blog: http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/blogs/page/schwer

Michael Brauer - Sun Germany - ham02 - Hamburg <>

Michael Brauer - Sun Germany - ham02 - Hamburg <> 

Sent by: 

06/22/2007 02:20 AM

To

Richard Schwerdtfeger/Austin/IBM@IBMUS

cc

, , , Robert Weir/Cambridge/IBM@Lotus, Hironobu Takagi <>, Pete Brunet/Austin/IBM@IBMUS, 

Subject

[office-accessibility] Re: [office] Recommendation to deprecate the is-subtable attribute

Rich,

I will put the topic on the agenda of the call on Monday. The call 

logistics will be in the agenda I will send out later this day to the TC 

mailing list.

Thanks

Michael

Richard Schwerdtfeger wrote:

> Hi Michael,

> 

> The issue raised on the use of table:is-subtable involves problems 

> arising during table cell merge and split whereas the structure and the 

> cell number scheme gets lost to assistive technologies. So, it appears 

> that your option covers that. Currently, the ODF spec. only highlights 

> an example where is-subtable was used for merging. We have been 

> following the discussion and there is an indication that 

> table:is-subtable is used for other purposes. Can the group provide some 

> woking examples as we are not aware of problems of it's use elsewhere?

> 

> Hiro Takagi and Pete Brunet have offred to attend attend TC call to 

> discuss the topic - just provide them the call logistics. I will be 

> traveling to W3C meetings next week.

> 

> Thanks,

> 

> Rich

> 

> 

> Rich Schwerdtfeger

> Distinguished Engineer, SWG Accessibility Architect/Strategist

> Chair, IBM Accessibility Architecture Review Board

> blog: http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/blogs/page/schwer

> Inactive hide details for Michael Brauer - Sun Germany - ham02 - Hamburg 

> <>Michael Brauer - Sun Germany - ham02 - Hamburg 

> <>

> 

> 

>                         *Michael Brauer - Sun Germany - ham02 - Hamburg

>                         <>*

>                         Sent by: 

> 

>                         06/21/2007 01:38 AM

> 

> 		 

> 

> To

> 		 

> 

> 

> cc

> 		 

> 

> 

> Subject

> 		 

> Re: [office] Recommendation to deprecate the is-subtable attribute

> 

> 		 

> 

> 

> Hi,

> 

> I have just noticed that my mail was confusing:

> 

> First, I wrote:

> 

>  > What I'm wondering is whether we should

>  > deprecate the attribute in general, or whether we should only deprecate

>  > the use of this attribute for the purpose of merging cells.

> 

> Later on, I wrote:

> 

>  > What the attribute does is to visually merge nested tables into the

>  > surrounding table. If we consider this to be a reasonable feature, then

>  > we should only deprecate the use of this feature to represent merged

>  > cells. If we think no one ever needs this feature, then we may deprecate

>  > it in general. I actually have a slight preference for the first option,

> 

> That means, I have changed the order of option:-(

> 

> So, my preference is to deprecate the feature only to represent merged

> cells, too.

> 

> Michael

> 

> David A. Wheeler wrote:

>  > Michael Brauer:

>  >> my understanding of the request is that the use of the is-subtable

>  >> attribute defined in section 8.2.6 should be deprecated, but not sub

>  >> tables in general.

>  >>

>  >> The reason is that, if this attribute is used in combination with

>  >> sub-tables to represent merged cells, that these tables are not 

> accessible.

>  >>

>  >> I do understand that argument, and therefore support the request to

>  >> deprecate the attribute. What I'm wondering is whether we should

>  >> deprecate the attribute in general, or whether we should only deprecate

>  >> the use of this attribute for the purpose of merging cells.

>  >

>  > I recommend #2.

>  >

>  > I believe this attribute should be "deprecated" only in the sense 

> that it should not be used to merge cells when spanning was intended 

> instead.  But it should NOT be truly deprecated (option #1), because 

> having a table merge into a larger table is semantically different, and 

> it's a useful sementic differentiation to make.  The problem is not that 

> the concept (fully merged subtables) is useless; the problem is overuse 

> of one construct (subtables with hidden borders) when spanning was 

> intended instead.

>  >

>  > --- David A. Wheeler

> 

> 

> -- 

> Michael Brauer, Technical Architect Software Engineering

> StarOffice/OpenOffice.org

> Sun Microsystems GmbH             Nagelsweg 55

> D-20097 Hamburg, Germany          

> http://sun.com/staroffice         +49 40 23646 500

> http://blogs.sun.com/GullFOSS

> 

> Sitz der Gesellschaft: Sun Microsystems GmbH, Sonnenallee 1,

>    D-85551 Kirchheim-Heimstetten

> Amtsgericht Muenchen: HRB 161028

> Geschaeftsfuehrer: Marcel Schneider, Wolfgang Engels, Dr. Roland Boemer

> Vorsitzender des Aufsichtsrates: Martin Haering

> 

-- 

Michael Brauer, Technical Architect Software Engineering

StarOffice/OpenOffice.org

Sun Microsystems GmbH             Nagelsweg 55

D-20097 Hamburg, Germany          

http://sun.com/staroffice         +49 40 23646 500

http://blogs.sun.com/GullFOSS

Sitz der Gesellschaft: Sun Microsystems GmbH, Sonnenallee 1,

		    D-85551 Kirchheim-Heimstetten

Amtsgericht Muenchen: HRB 161028

Geschaeftsfuehrer: Marcel Schneider, Wolfgang Engels, Dr. Roland Boemer

Vorsitzender des Aufsichtsrates: Martin Haering