|
|
Posted by Jukka K. Korpela on 04/26/07 17:12
Scripsit dorayme:
> In article <5RPXh.43509$Fz3.14261@reader1.news.saunalahti.fi>,
> "Jukka K. Korpela" <jkorpela@cs.tut.fi> wrote:
>
>> Now please excuse me white I fetch my asbestos suit and prepare to
>> getting flamed for recommending "tables for layout".
>
> Ah, but, earlier in your post, you gave a previous argument as to
> why there was a table-relationship in all this so it is not
> purely a layout issue. <g>
Yes, my statement was not entirely serious.
> Ages ago I gave an argument (in response to Jonathan Little which
> no doubt very few if any would have understood or appreciated) to
> show that there _was_ a tabular relationship between a side
> navigation column and a right content column
Sounds like a hopeless case.
> when taking account
> the website as a whole and not merely an individual page.
A page is a page. Either your page contains tabular data, or it doesn't.
> When
> one finds it convenient to use a table, it is not too hard to
> find arguments. I thought yours not too bad. I still think mine
> was good.
I think yours is much worse. There is no correspondence between the
navigation "column" and the content "column". The navigation column could be
described as one by N matrix, but it would be rather illogical to consider
the content as another "column", except purely for layout.
My table, on the other hand, exhibits genuine tabular relationships: the
text and the notes run in parallel. Each note relates to piece particular
text (in a cell). What could be _more_ tabular (assuming you haven't got the
odd idea that only numbers can be tabulated)? Some pieces of text have no
associated note (or, we may say, the associated note is empty), but that's
not abnormal in tables.
--
Jukka K. Korpela ("Yucca")
http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|