It's attempting to make something perform in a way it was not designed, nor intended, for. Just because a Honda Civic can't compete in an F1 race doesn't mean the Civic is broken.
It's a table, for the intent of displaying tabular data. Headers are an essential component of reading a table. If the headers do not remain visible after scrolling down, the table is not displaying useful information.
It is a broken experience, and a defect in the HTML concept of a "table".
Honestly, we have to stop defending these terrible web technologies we're saddled with. We use them because they're the only universal-standard client application engine.
I don't think they're all that bad either... I mean if you're using IE then sure you can say they are terrible. But in the other browsers - they're actually pretty good. There is room for improvement - but for what we get it's pretty incredible. And you can implement headers that follow you in a table - it just requires writing some code, which you can say is bad.. but then if you go off and write in a native application I"m sure you'll be writing a lot more code than I will in my web app... the issues usually boil down to the client e.g. IE or the lack of native extensions in WebCore preventing the web app from performing better... yeah.. that's my two cents...
So, an always visible table header is a requirement for correct viewing of tabular data. That means every book ever printed, or long pages for that matter, that had tabular data presents a broken experience.
I would think that people who relied on books before computers came along would disagree.
HTML provides for a means to view tabular data and performs that function in a minimal and acceptable manner. People moving the goal posts on the requirements does not mean the current implementation is "broken" nor "defective". It simply does not perform an extra feature that people would like to have today.
I also don't believe I was defending anything, I was simply disagreeing with an unfair criticism against a technology because it wouldn't do what it wasn't designed to do based on current expectations.
The simple fact that HTML/CSS/Javascript allows for it to be extended and expanded shows it is not a defective means of displaying information. It means that there's the occasional lag in updating the specs to meet people's current expectations. Blame the people not keeping the spec up to date with current expectations and not the spec.
Once position:sticky is in common use I suppose we'll wait until the next new expectation of functionality appears that means something is "broken".
HTML/CSS/Javascript is good in many ways, but I agree it is not perfect and it never will be.
If I were reading a book where I could look at tabular data split across multiple pages and not see the headers at the top of each page, I would throw it out. When looking at multiple screen-fulls of tabular data, the expectation remains.
I was making applications in VB5 in the late '90s that solved this problem. Expecting it 15ish years later in a platform that includes tabular data as a core feature is not unreasonable.
HTML+CSS+Javascript is a poor general-purpose application development platform and an okay document engine. It is only made usable by the herculean combined effort of the entire 21st century software industry.
I knew someone would toss out the multiple pages with tables example. In terms of HTML that's called multiple tables. I agree that it's not efficient.
Nor did I say that such a feature was unreasonable, I'm just saying that people are complaining about a lack of feature that wasn't built in before the expectations of that feature. People want it and there have been people seriously attempting to implement a solution. But that kind of thing takes time and the problem is it isn't happening in a time table that makes enough people happy. So they complain and toss out unfair criticisms.
Your last bit proves my point, people are attempting to use these technologies in ways they were not designed to do and yet complain about them not being able to do it. You might as well hate your car because it doesn't fly.
It's attempting to make something perform in a way it was not designed, nor intended, for. Just because a Honda Civic can't compete in an F1 race doesn't mean the Civic is broken.