|
|
Posted by dorayme on 09/22/06 21:32
In article <6ff0b$4513efa3$40cba77e$19458@NAXS.COM>,
"Jonathan N. Little" <lws4art@centralva.net> wrote:
> Crap, so your point is?
>
> Yes there are loads of examples of badly designed websites out
> there...still doesn't make it a valid application for tables. Unlike
> modern politics, repetition does not make a falsehood true.
Perhaps his point is this: if you want to put a huge picture for
some reason or other on a website page, tables is the only
possible way to go. Or it is the best way to go. Or it is a
convenient and easy way to go because machine algorithms can
splice up a big pic in a table easier than any other way?
You are a wily shark Jonathan and this innocent might need some
help, some leads of what to splutter in reply to you.
Let us not go into why someone might want as a rarity to put a
big pic on a website, you would be on very shaky ground to say
that there never could be a good reason, that it never should be
done. It could be for fun, for information, to send a mighty
impressive ransom note, to do an electronic Hieronymus Bosch (The
Garden of Earthly delights) and then some, and a million other
reasons that might emerge in the next 5 million years.
One question might be the way to do it. Obviously, one big pic
would have its drawbacks for the impatient viewer, so it needs to
be spliced up somehow, somehow delivered in bits and some of the
bits showing.
In this particular case I imagine it would not be hard to deliver
it without table cells if you spliced it all up by hand etc. How
easy this is to do for non human agents, I have no idea? Is
Dreamweaver up to generating with divs yet?
Anyway, it was fun to see it. Someone went to a lot of trouble.
--
dorayme
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|