Posted by dorayme on 09/07/06 06:31

In article <pan.2006.09.07.03.43.19.537505@XmbstevensX.com>,
mbstevens <NOXwebmasterX@XmbstevensX.com> wrote:

> On Thu, 07 Sep 2006 12:37:40 +1000, dorayme wrote:
>
> > I added a captioned version to the playing about on gallery layouts at
> >
> > http://tinyurl.com/nnkn2
> > Anyone have any preferences in all this
> > re these layouts or alternative strategies?
>
>
>
> Along the same line,
> I assume you've already seen:
> http://www.realworldstyle.com/thumb_float.html ?
>

As I think I mentioned before (this came up in another thread),
the div layout you can see at my url was based on your earlier
suggestion to look at this. You might spot what I think is a
slight improvement in the html/css, nothing big but a tidier
thing in that no need to keep classing the div in the html as in
your reference url. And the grouping into different shapes,
landscapes and portraits and clearing to keep them from mixing.

I am not quite sure about the <p>ing of the caption, is there a
good argument for this in this particular case? In my url, in the
div float template trials, I just text after the break. All is
enclosed in the div.
>
> Image-caption pairs are also tabular, if you choose to see them that way.
> One column for captions, one column for images works best. Doing it the
> other way around results in over-wide pages if you have any reasonable
> number of images.
>

Are you saying that there is an argument for putting the lot in a
table because there is a tabular element? I can see this, yes and
it is normally how I would have done it in the past, but as I say
in the spiel at my url, the beauty of non table layout here is
the wrap, the flexibility, not having to fix a set number of
thumb/caption pairs to each row. (I am not so churchy that I
would always resist a table just because it is for layout anyway!
For example I do not rush to change old websites code employing a
bit of table layout if it is going to take a lot of time when I
am busy. I get around to it in good time).

I am wondering whether you folks would be thinking the list way
of laying out is better than the floating div way? The list way
makes for rather cleaner html and seems to me closer to the
semantic reality of a portrait gallery, an unordered list of
items. (I know, it sound awfully posh the phrase, semantic
reality... but hell, you know what I mean ... I hope)

--
dorayme

[Back to original message]