On Sat, 06 May 2006 23:54:28 +0100 Steve Pugh <st***@pugh.net > wrote:
|
ph************* *@ipal.net wrote:
|>On Sat, 06 May 2006 18:48:03 +0100 Steve Pugh <st***@pugh.net > wrote:
|>|
ph************* *@ipal.net wrote:
|>|>On Sat, 06 May 2006 10:38:02 +0100 Steve Pugh <st***@pugh.net > wrote:
|>|>|
ph************* *@ipal.net wrote:
|>|>|>On Fri, 05 May 2006 19:37:07 +0100 Steve Pugh <st***@pugh.net > wrote:
|>|>|>|
ph************* *@ipal.net wrote:
|>|>|>|>On Fri, 05 May 2006 08:10:01 +0100 Steve Pugh <st***@pugh.net > wrote:
|>|>|
|
|>| A table means that certain alterations of the data and markup aren't
|>| permitted. i.e. you can't swap row 2, column 3 with row 3, column 5.
|>| The fact that this leads to certain presentational constraints in
|>| certain media is a consequence not a starting point.
|>
|>It's the consequence I want.
|>
|>I don't know why you though I meant it was a starting point.
|
| Because the appearance seems to be all you care about.
| So it seems to be both the start and the end.
It's all that I am raising as an issue here right now. There are other
things besides appearance. But those are not the current issue that led
me to make the original post.
|>|> What term would you use for data that
|>|>is not tabular in nature, but requires exactly the same presentation?
|>|
|>| Maybe I'd call it an image? On the WWW I'd almost certainly call it
|>| broken.
|>
|>Why would it be broken?
|
| Because the WWW is media independent and if a certain exact
| presentation is required then that is something that can not exist on
| the WWW. What does your grid look like in an aural browser?
Not all content is suitable for all media. What does you voice look
like on a visual browser to a deaf person?
|>I see no reason to have a constraint on _what_ you can put in a table.
|>If it's a number, fine. If it's a block text, why should that matter?
|
| Anything can go into a table so long as it's tabular data. That can be
| text, images, anything. So long as it has a relationship with the
| other items of data in the same row and column then it's tabular data.
And this rule applies whether it's a TABLE element in HTML or CSS tables?
| Who ever suggested that it can't be a block of text?
Other respondents in this newsgroup.
OK, so it's a block of text then. I'll try to remember who to send them
to if they try to say any different. You can set them straight.
|>|>If the semantics of a grid is only about presentation, then it is an
|>|>incomplete statement about what I want to have in my layout.
|>|
|>| Could you try that sentence again in English? The grid has no
|>| semantics, and semantics are never about presentation so the first
|>| clause is hopeless, and I'm not sure which statement you are referring
|>| to in the second clause.
|>
|>We clearly are NOT think of the same thing with the word "grid".
|
| The second definition at
http://www.answers.com/grid&r=67 works for
| me: "Something resembling a framework of crisscrossed parallel bars,
| as in rigidity or organization"
I like the organization part of that.
|>|>Certainly a grid presentation is still a grid presentation if the cells
|>|>of a table are randomly scattered about, and the dimensions are not the
|>|>same between the grid and the table.
|>|
|>| Sorry, I think I need an example.
|>
|>It's like a table, with no required relationships.
|
| Bingo. That's the context I've been using it in this thread. Like a 2d
| representation of a table in presentation, but without the table
| semantics.
Since you widened the scope of what is tabular data, then doesn't that
imply the semantics of tabular data, if I use that which is within the
scope of tabular data?
|> It's when you put
|>the two together you get all the semantics combined.
|
| Eh? Put what two together? A grid and a table? A grid, as we are using
| the word here, is a presentation, it has no semantics.
OK, now that I know you are referring to the semantics of the document,
I see what you mean.
| A table has semantics, but I thought that you wanted something with
| the typical table presentation in 2d media (i.e. a grid) but with some
| different semantics that you stubbornly refuse to elucidate.
We were talking about semantics in different contexts.
|> Of course since
|>you don't recognize the word "grid" the way I do, this won't mean
|>anything to you.
|
| What makes you think I don't recognise the word grid? I've see it
| often enough in your recent posts. I've used in my posts, despite your
| insinuations above you and I have been using grid with the same
| meaning as far as I can see.
Someone else suggested grid a while back, and so I started using it.
| You're rapidly approaching Luigi levels of obliviousness.
No meaning to me from that.
|>|>I wasn't talking about just presentation in _my_ semantics of a grid.
|>|
|>| Then what are the semantics of your grid? Without referencing anything
|>| to do with the presentation please explain what semantics your 'grid'
|>| has. What does the 'grid' mean? This meaning should be invariant of
|>| the media used to present the 'grid' so it must remain the same when
|>| presented aurally for example.
|>
|>The grid is a 2 dimensional structure, primarily whole in both dimensions
|>(e.g. no columns with fewer rows and no rows with fewer columns).
|
| We've already established the presentation of a grid. No need to
| repeat it again. But that still doesn't explain what semantics you
| think a grid has, all you've done here is explain, yet again, is give
| the presentation.
Semantics in terms of what the definition of behaviour would be if there
were a specification literally of "grid" in CSS. There isn't, so what
those semantics are is wide open consideration.
The context of how I used "semantics" in the just previous paragraph is
not the semantics of a document that would be specified, but rather, the
semantics of the elements of the specifications in a "language" like CSS.
| What does a grid mean? Not what does it look like. What does it mean?
|
|>|>But because you aren't willing to understand what _my_ semantics are,
|>|
|>| I'm very willing, but other than saying that you want the same
|>| presentation as a table you haven't been willing to say what your
|>| requirements are.
|>
|>I want what I get with TABLE/TR/TD.
|
| You get the presentation you want. We established that about a dozen
| posts ago. But what are the semantics that you want?
I don't think there is anything in HTML that can truly give me the
semantics of the document itself, the way I want.
|>|>I'm faced with the challenge of finding a term within your vocabulary
|>|>that does have the semantics I want. I'm not sure there is one, but
|>|>the term table is the closest I can think of at the moment.
|>|
|>| Grid seems to be doing just fine. You want the a rigid grid for
|>| presentation purposes. That is clear. You also seem to think that this
|>| rigid grid has some form of semantics ina ddition to its
|>| presentational apsects but you haven't elaborated on what these
|>| semantics are.
|>|
|>| What does <grid>data</grid> mean that plain data does not mean?
|>
|>I have no idea what you are trying to refer to.
|
| <p>data</p> has the semantics that the data is a paragraph, i.e. a
| self contained block of text normally concerned with a single topic.
|
| <h1>data</h1> has the semantics that the data is a level one heading.
|
| <td>data</td> has the semantics that the data is a cell in a table,
| with relationships to the other cells in the same row and column.
|
| So, what are the semantics of a grid? What would a hypothetical
| <grid>data</grid> element say about the data? That's what we have been
| trying to establish all along, what are the semantics that you want to
| give to your data?
I wasn't using "grid" in the context of being HTML markup to be used to
indicate the semantics of the document.
|>| All the rest of this sound and fury has been a struggle to understand
|>| what you mean by semantics (as it is clear that you do not mean what
|>| the rest of us mean) and what these 'semantics' of a grid are, once we
|>| understand what the semantics you require are can suggest the most
|>| appropriate HTML to convey those semantics, and then we can apply CSS
|>| on top of that to give you the rigid grid presentation.
|>|
|>| That's how it works - HTML for semantics and CSS for presentation.
|>
|>There are, however, semantics for the things found in the CSS "language".
|>That's not semantics of the document, but rather, semantics of how those
|>things will cause the browser to render the document.
|
| The "semantics" of the CSS display: table-* properties are "make this
| look _like_ a typical 2d rendering of a table".
Maybe they should have chosen a different term in place of "table".
But, neveretheless, it is there, and it can be made to work, though it
seems a few other people don't have the knack for it (but, you do).
|>Maybe this has been the difference; you're referring to the semantics of
|>the document,
|
| What else would I be referring to in the context of authoring for the
| WWW?
The specification of the languages (CSS and HTML) themselves.
|>and I'm referring to the semantics of the specifications.
|>It's the specifications that I'm having so much trouble with right now,
|>so that is what I am focusing on.
|
| HTML is for semantics.
| CSS is for presentation.
But, the term semantics is applicable to understanding any language,
be it CSS, HTML, XML, C, Python, Java, COBOL, English, etc.
|>So why is there "table" in HTML _and_ "table" in CSS? Is "table" a kind
|>of presentation? Someone thought so if they put it in CSS.
|
| The table in HTML is to markup data with table semantics.
| The table in CSS is to markup data with table like presentation.
You left the door pretty wide for using HTML tables, though.
| The built in style sheets in browsers give CSS table presentation to
| HTML tables, so you don't need to specify the CSS itself in your
| author stylesheet.
|
| But if you want to create something that looks like a table, but
| isn't, semantically speaking, a table you use the CSS to give the
| table presentation to some other HTML element - one who's semantics
| does match the data in question.
I think that leaves things pretty well open to the wild to debate
whether some contents/document is a table. Some others would not
agree with you about anything being allowed if it had the row and
column relationships that you seemed to a few paragraphs above.
It might be presented as a table; but _is_ it a table? Who knows.
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Phil Howard KA9WGN |
http://linuxhomepage.com/ http://ham.org/ |
| (first name) at ipal.net |
http://phil.ipal.org/ http://ka9wgn.ham.org/ |
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
