|
|
Posted by Ben C on 04/28/07 10:22
On 2007-04-28, dorayme <doraymeRidThis@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
> In article
><doraymeRidThis-AE5B41.15134528042007@news-vip.optusnet.com.au>,
> dorayme <doraymeRidThis@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
>
>> In article
>> <doraymeRidThis-304E09.08254727042007@news-vip.optusnet.com.au>,
>> dorayme <doraymeRidThis@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
>>
>> > I know some people will say it is ridiculous to redefine the
>> > common meaning of table in this way, that it is a trick. But in
>> > truth, when authors use a table for this particular layout
>> > purpose, I say it is more in accordance with what they are
>> > actually doing, it is a better description, a truer account of
>> > their general reasonableness.
>>
>> dorayme, when you talk like this, you make people like Pugh think
>> you are on drugs, people like Bergamot get infuriated and Korpela
>> will simply see it as babble. Be a good girl or boy or creature
>> or whatever you are and try not to frighten the horses so much.
>> Remember, you are on a public forum.
>
> Yes ok, I know what you mean. It is just that I think it is never
> made very clear that there is a difference in kind and not merely
> in degree between at least two types of uses for html tables for
> non-paradigmatic tabular purposes.
>
> In the one case, it is merely a device to arrange bits of the
> page how the author wants, often for aesthetic or other
> convenient purposes that do not include tabular motives. There
> are especially good reasons for avoiding this.
>
> But in the other case, there are tabular motives. The idea of the
> 3-D table was merely a device to bring this out. Another way of
> putting it is that all the links in a navigational left column
> can have a tabular relationship to items in a right col, but the
> location of the right col is not on the same page but on another
> page. This makes it a very different creature to the "purely for
> display" table, it is much closer to the very idea of tabular
> cross col mechanism that is at the heart of tables.
>
> It is not a black and white thing. There are degrees and there
> are complexities. Purists, like ideologues everywhere, are prone
> to condemning with a very broad brush.
The truth is a table (as opposed to a <table>) is _really_ a rectangular
grid. It can be used to represent various kinds of relationships, and so
those are what we're clutching at in our quest for the abstract table.
So long as the relationships aren't purely layout ("A should appear
to the right of B", etc.) anything goes really.
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|