grid structures: TABLE/TR/TD vs. DIV

phil-news-nospam (AT) ipal (DOT) net wrote:

I've seen several different examples over the past few days and cannot
say which is which anymore. I don't bother to try to remember all the
details of things where the other party isn't trying to follow through
on those issues. I just dismiss it and remember that some greater number
of examples still don't work.

Of course, if you are wanting make something work, and follow through
to get it working in all ways, I'm certainly willing to give feedback.

But here are some of the issues I have seen:

1. It must be a separate CSS file that works regardless of how many
different columns the HTML marked up content has.

That becomes tricky if you want the table columns to have equal widths
(I'm assuming that the table should be 100% wide and not some fixed
pixel width). If the column widths are in the CSS then some
assimputions need to be made about the number of columns. If the
column widths are inline in the HTML then you start to bloat your
code.

The example I'm using gets around this by setting two classes on the
parent div. One sets up all the basic table presentation, and the
other sets up the column widths.

2. It must not "float" any items down to following "rows" (what appears
to be a row).

3. Text (and everything else) must not bleed out from the bounds of the
cell. If the font size is too large, it must keep either whole words,
or at least whole character glyphs, within the cell, even if that means
the total width forces horizontal scrolling.

These come as standard with CSS tables just as they do with HTML
tables. Whatever examples you saw were probably using floats rather
than CSS tables.

Both can be worked around to a certain extent when using floats by use
of min-width styles (so that includes IE 7 but not Ie 6) but will
still break down in extreme cases.

There may be other issues. In all, the way TABLE/TR/TD elements work in
HTML must be retained.

Even the things that make tables a poor choice for web page layout
(the very rigidity you desire, oo er missus).

http://steve.pugh.net/test/css-table-demo.html

Note that all the cells in each row have the same height regardless of
the height of their contents. That each row stays together no matter
how narrow the window becomes and that the content always stays inside
the cells. The HTML is minimal, the CSS likewise.

My choice of ul for the rows and li for the cells was arbitrary but
ensures that thre's some measure of presentation even in IE which
doesn't support display: table.

Works as desired in FireFox and Opera and I hope it works in
Safari/Konqueror as well. IE, even IE 7, is a lost cause. Maybe in IE
8.

I've included a short block of code inside an IE conditional comment
that gives IE a basic floated layout instead. This demonstrates quite
clearly some of the shortcomings with floats for this sort of layout
and why MS really need to pull their finger out and implement CSS
tables (only eight years and counting since the spec was published).

Steve
--
"My theories appal you, my heresies outrage you,
I never answer letters and you don't like my tie." - The Doctor

Steve Pugh <steve (AT) pugh (DOT) net> <http://steve.pugh.net/>

On Sat, 06 May 2006 10:38:02 +0100 Steve Pugh <steve (AT) pugh (DOT) net> wrote:

phil-news-nospam (AT) ipal (DOT) net wrote:
On Fri, 05 May 2006 19:37:07 +0100 Steve Pugh <steve (AT) pugh (DOT) net> wrote:
| phil-news-nospam (AT) ipal (DOT) net wrote:
|>On Fri, 05 May 2006 08:10:01 +0100 Steve Pugh <steve (AT) pugh (DOT) net> wrote:

|>| It's all about the semantics. A table has semantics whereby any piece
|>| of content belongs to a row and column and that belonging has a set
|>| meaning. A 'grid' just has the same appearance but none of the
|>| semantics.
|
|>I've found more than one kind of semantics for a grid.
|
| A grid has no semantics.

Sure it does. But there's no real value in debating words. What I want
is what a grid is with the semantics that I see with TABLE/TR/TD elements.

The semantics of a table are "This is a table, there are relationships
between the items in the rows and columns as specified by the row and
column headers". Those semantics remain the same regardless of whether
the table is presented as a 2d grid on a screen/piece of paper, read
out in some way by a speech browser, linearised by a braile device,
stripped to its component pieces by a script and inserted into a
database, etc.

A table should also imply that certain alterations in appearance or
presentation are not permitted. What term would you use for data that
is not tabular in nature, but requires exactly the same presentation?

A grid does not have those semantics. A grid just has presentation, it
says nothing about what the dat _is_ but everything about how the data
_looks_.

I strongly suspect that you are not using the word semantics in the
same way as the rest of us. Which lets me make a terrible
meta-something joke and ask you "what do you mean by semantics?" ;-)

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.

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.

I wasn't talking about just presentation in _my_ semantics of a grid.
But because you aren't willing to understand what _my_ semantics are,
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.

To me, it's a grid if it meets certain criteria. I call those criteria
the semantics of a grid. But maybe it might be clearer to shift the
usage over to something like "rigid grid".

Probably for the best.

What I get out of using TABLE/TR/TD elements in HTML is the closest to what
I want. Examples shown and found using CSS have been further away from it.

--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Phil Howard KA9WGN | http://linuxhomepage.com/ http://ham.org/ |
(first name) at ipal.net | http://phil.ipal.org/ http://ka9wgn.ham.org/ |
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Steve Pugh <steve (AT) pugh (DOT) net> wrote:

The semantics of a table are "This is a table, there are relationships
between the items in the rows and columns as specified by the row and
column headers". Those semantics remain the same regardless of whether
the table is presented as a 2d grid on a screen/piece of paper, read
out in some way by a speech browser, linearised by a braile device,
stripped to its component pieces by a script and inserted into a
database, etc.

<phil-news-nospam (AT) ipal (DOT) net> wrote:

A table should also imply that certain alterations in appearance or
presentation are not permitted.

What alterations do you think should not be permitted? Keep in mind that
the meaning of the table structure will be the same in any of the
presentation forms mentioned by Steve:

- a 2d grid on a screen/piece of paper
- read out in some way by a speech browser
- linearised by a braile device
- component pieces inserted into a database
--
Darin McGrew, mcgrew (AT) stanfordalumni (DOT) org, http://www.rahul.net/mcgrew/
Web Design Group, darin (AT) htmlhelp (DOT) com, http://www.HTMLHelp.com/

"If you find yourself in a hole, stop digging." - Will Rogers

On Sat, 06 May 2006 11:01:11 +0100 Steve Pugh <steve (AT) pugh (DOT) net> wrote:

phil-news-nospam (AT) ipal (DOT) net wrote:

I've seen several different examples over the past few days and cannot
say which is which anymore. I don't bother to try to remember all the
details of things where the other party isn't trying to follow through
on those issues. I just dismiss it and remember that some greater number
of examples still don't work.

Of course, if you are wanting make something work, and follow through
to get it working in all ways, I'm certainly willing to give feedback.

But here are some of the issues I have seen:

1. It must be a separate CSS file that works regardless of how many
different columns the HTML marked up content has.

That becomes tricky if you want the table columns to have equal widths
(I'm assuming that the table should be 100% wide and not some fixed
pixel width). If the column widths are in the CSS then some
assimputions need to be made about the number of columns. If the
column widths are inline in the HTML then you start to bloat your
code.

I don't need to have each of the table columns of equal width. It would
work if they were, but it is not required. However, it would be preferrable
to have the HEIGHTS of each column, when there is only _one_ row, to be
made equal. When there are multiple rows, keeping the columns aligned is
usually a requirement, so adjusting the columns widths in this case would
require compromising across all the rows.

The following examples show adjustment to columns widths taking place:

http://phil.ipal.org/usenet/ciwas/20...n-table-1.html
http://phil.ipal.org/usenet/ciwas/20...n-table-2.html

If the 2nd one went a little further to where the column heights leveled
out, that would be fine by me.

For those w/o Firefox who want to see:

http://phil.ipal.org/usenet/ciwas/20...in-table-1.png
http://phil.ipal.org/usenet/ciwas/20...in-table-2.png

The example I'm using gets around this by setting two classes on the
parent div. One sets up all the basic table presentation, and the
other sets up the column widths.

I'm not opposed to using a markup with DIV and classes in lieu of a
markup with TABLE/TR/TD (maybe also with classes). The issue is with
the way the layout behaves with DIV as seen in examples others have
given (at least as rendered on my browser). Maybe there is some way
in CSS to fix that, but I have no idea what that might be, and the
examples certainly didn't try to use it.

At this point I am using TABLE/TR/TD because it is what works.

2. It must not "float" any items down to following "rows" (what appears
to be a row).

3. Text (and everything else) must not bleed out from the bounds of the
cell. If the font size is too large, it must keep either whole words,
or at least whole character glyphs, within the cell, even if that means
the total width forces horizontal scrolling.

These come as standard with CSS tables just as they do with HTML
tables. Whatever examples you saw were probably using floats rather
than CSS tables.

Many people have said I need to use floats. Not sure why. But I did
see one that used tables, and it had problems. I've lost track of where
that one is, now.

Both can be worked around to a certain extent when using floats by use
of min-width styles (so that includes IE 7 but not Ie 6) but will
still break down in extreme cases.

I don't want to specify widths in the CSS because the CSS does not know
what the content will be, or how many columns. With TABLE/TR/TD I can
just toss out as many columns as I want, within reason (e.g. 100 columns
is certainly not going to do very well) and it will display reasonably
well. If widths have to be specified, it is the producer of that data
that would know how many, and the widths would have to be output from
there (maybe as in-line CSS?).

There may be other issues. In all, the way TABLE/TR/TD elements work in
HTML must be retained.

Even the things that make tables a poor choice for web page layout
(the very rigidity you desire, oo er missus).

http://steve.pugh.net/test/css-table-demo.html

This one doesn't bleed or fold over.

Note that all the cells in each row have the same height regardless of
the height of their contents. That each row stays together no matter
how narrow the window becomes and that the content always stays inside
the cells. The HTML is minimal, the CSS likewise.

I removed the width specifications your demo had, and the columns took
up reasonable widths in a balanced way. So maybe that isn't needed.

Since you put the box borders on the cells themselves, it's not going
to be easy to put multiple boxes in the same cell to make this work
with one table row.

One issue: I tried to cut back on the padding inside the boxes, and
specified padding 1px, but that didn't change it. Here is what I
trimmed your CSS down to:

<style type="text/css">
div.grid {display: table; width: 100%; border-spacing: 1em;}
div.grid ul {display: table-row;}
div.grid li {display: table-cell; padding: 1px; background: #d7d7d7; border: 1px solid black;}
</style>
<!--[if IE ]>
<style type="text/css">
div.grid ul {display: block; clear: left; margin: 0; padding: 0;}
div.grid li {float: left; margin: 1em 0.5em;}
</style>
<![endif]-->

My choice of ul for the rows and li for the cells was arbitrary but
ensures that thre's some measure of presentation even in IE which
doesn't support display: table.

Interesting.

Works as desired in FireFox and Opera and I hope it works in
Safari/Konqueror as well. IE, even IE 7, is a lost cause. Maybe in IE
8.

But if it works in IE <8 with TABLE/TR/TD, and if I want to present to
users of IE, then I have to do it this way. Label it as a hack; that
won't bother me.

There are cases where I'm satisfied with a page that won't work in IE.
And there are cases where I want it to work in IE.

And I'd like to use the "if IE" test in conjunction with a test for a
"microsoft.com" client domain, to enlarge the "get Firefox to see this
page correctly" button :-)

I've included a short block of code inside an IE conditional comment
that gives IE a basic floated layout instead. This demonstrates quite
clearly some of the shortcomings with floats for this sort of layout
and why MS really need to pull their finger out and implement CSS
tables (only eight years and counting since the spec was published).

One wonders where that finger has been over the past couple of decades.

--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Phil Howard KA9WGN | http://linuxhomepage.com/ http://ham.org/ |
(first name) at ipal.net | http://phil.ipal.org/ http://ka9wgn.ham.org/ |
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

phil-news-nospam (AT) ipal (DOT) net wrote:

On Sat, 06 May 2006 10:38:02 +0100 Steve Pugh <steve (AT) pugh (DOT) net> wrote:
| phil-news-nospam (AT) ipal (DOT) net wrote:
|>On Fri, 05 May 2006 19:37:07 +0100 Steve Pugh <steve (AT) pugh (DOT) net> wrote:
|>| phil-news-nospam (AT) ipal (DOT) net wrote:
|>|>On Fri, 05 May 2006 08:10:01 +0100 Steve Pugh <steve (AT) pugh (DOT) net> wrote:
|
|>|>| It's all about the semantics. A table has semantics whereby any piece
|>|>| of content belongs to a row and column and that belonging has a set
|>|>| meaning. A 'grid' just has the same appearance but none of the
|>|>| semantics.
|>|
|>|>I've found more than one kind of semantics for a grid.
|>|
|>| A grid has no semantics.
|
|>Sure it does. But there's no real value in debating words. What I want
|>is what a grid is with the semantics that I see with TABLE/TR/TD elements.
|
| The semantics of a table are "This is a table, there are relationships
| between the items in the rows and columns as specified by the row and
| column headers". Those semantics remain the same regardless of whether
| the table is presented as a 2d grid on a screen/piece of paper, read
| out in some way by a speech browser, linearised by a braile device,
| stripped to its component pieces by a script and inserted into a
| database, etc.

A table should also imply that certain alterations in appearance or
presentation are not permitted.

No that's not a table. A table is still a table if it's being
presented aurally instead of visually.

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.

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.

| A grid does not have those semantics. A grid just has presentation, it
| says nothing about what the dat _is_ but everything about how the data
| _looks_.
|
| I strongly suspect that you are not using the word semantics in the
| same way as the rest of us. Which lets me make a terrible
| meta-something joke and ask you "what do you mean by semantics?" ;-)

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.

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.

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.

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'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?

|>To me, it's a grid if it meets certain criteria. I call those criteria
|>the semantics of a grid. But maybe it might be clearer to shift the
|>usage over to something like "rigid grid".
|
| Probably for the best.

What I get out of using TABLE/TR/TD elements in HTML is the closest to what
I want. Examples shown and found using CSS have been further away from it.

You want a rigid layout grid. We get that. We got that many, many
posts ago. We have explained that you can get such a rigid grid with
CSS tables but that they are not safe to use in the wild as IE doesn't
support them. But putting concerns about IE to one side and
concentrating on the theoretical...

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.

Steve
--
"My theories appal you, my heresies outrage you,
I never answer letters and you don't like my tie." - The Doctor

Steve Pugh <steve (AT) pugh (DOT) net> <http://steve.pugh.net/>

On Sat, 06 May 2006 11:01:11 +0100 Steve Pugh <steve (AT) pugh (DOT) net> wrote:

http://steve.pugh.net/test/css-table-demo.html

This seems to work, now. I think part of this is by removing the widths
and part by having some additional boxes (DIV elements) within the cells
to bound the text better. Anyway, here's what I ended up with:

http://phil.ipal.org/usenet/ciwas/20...-hotbox-1.html

Getting this to work in IE, though, is probably hopeless, given so many
things it doesn't support that are really useful.

For those who don't have Firefox, the above can be seen here:

http://phil.ipal.org/usenet/ciwas/20...-hotbox-1a.png
http://phil.ipal.org/usenet/ciwas/20...-hotbox-1b.png

where the 2nd one has the top left box being hovered.

--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Phil Howard KA9WGN | http://linuxhomepage.com/ http://ham.org/ |
(first name) at ipal.net | http://phil.ipal.org/ http://ka9wgn.ham.org/ |
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

On Sat, 06 May 2006 18:48:03 +0100 Steve Pugh <steve (AT) pugh (DOT) net> wrote:

phil-news-nospam (AT) ipal (DOT) net wrote:
On Sat, 06 May 2006 10:38:02 +0100 Steve Pugh <steve (AT) pugh (DOT) net> wrote:
| phil-news-nospam (AT) ipal (DOT) net wrote:
|>On Fri, 05 May 2006 19:37:07 +0100 Steve Pugh <steve (AT) pugh (DOT) net> wrote:
|>| phil-news-nospam (AT) ipal (DOT) net wrote:
|>|>On Fri, 05 May 2006 08:10:01 +0100 Steve Pugh <steve (AT) pugh (DOT) net> wrote:
|
|>|>| It's all about the semantics. A table has semantics whereby any piece
|>|>| of content belongs to a row and column and that belonging has a set
|>|>| meaning. A 'grid' just has the same appearance but none of the
|>|>| semantics.
|>|
|>|>I've found more than one kind of semantics for a grid.
|>|
|>| A grid has no semantics.
|
|>Sure it does. But there's no real value in debating words. What I want
|>is what a grid is with the semantics that I see with TABLE/TR/TD elements.
|
| The semantics of a table are "This is a table, there are relationships
| between the items in the rows and columns as specified by the row and
| column headers". Those semantics remain the same regardless of whether
| the table is presented as a 2d grid on a screen/piece of paper, read
| out in some way by a speech browser, linearised by a braile device,
| stripped to its component pieces by a script and inserted into a
| database, etc.

A table should also imply that certain alterations in appearance or
presentation are not permitted.

No that's not a table. A table is still a table if it's being
presented aurally instead of visually.

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.

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?

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?

| A grid does not have those semantics. A grid just has presentation, it
| says nothing about what the dat _is_ but everything about how the data
| _looks_.
|
| I strongly suspect that you are not using the word semantics in the
| same way as the rest of us. Which lets me make a terrible
| meta-something joke and ask you "what do you mean by semantics?" ;-)

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". But I
don't know how to find a word you know that has the same meaning when I
think of the word "grid". Maybe there's not _one_ word that would work.

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. It's when you put
the two together you get all the semantics combined. Of course since
you don't recognize the word "grid" the way I do, this won't mean
anything to you.

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).

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.

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.

|>To me, it's a grid if it meets certain criteria. I call those criteria
|>the semantics of a grid. But maybe it might be clearer to shift the
|>usage over to something like "rigid grid".
|
| Probably for the best.

What I get out of using TABLE/TR/TD elements in HTML is the closest to what
I want. Examples shown and found using CSS have been further away from it.

You want a rigid layout grid. We get that. We got that many, many
posts ago. We have explained that you can get such a rigid grid with
CSS tables but that they are not safe to use in the wild as IE doesn't
support them. But putting concerns about IE to one side and
concentrating on the theoretical...

And I finally got things to work right with CSS tables, at least in Firefox.
I'm not sure why other examples of CSS tables failed. But they were simpler
and did not have some of the extras I had because I did stuff like shadow
boxes inside each cell. Maybe these extra boxes succeeded in confining the
text flow or layout to inside the cell.

Those who gave previous examples didn't succeed in making it work the same
way as TABLE/TR/TD does. Your example did. And it was simple enough that
I was able to add my other stuff to it successfully.

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.

Maybe this has been the difference; you're referring to the semantics of
the document, 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.

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.

--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Phil Howard KA9WGN | http://linuxhomepage.com/ http://ham.org/ |
(first name) at ipal.net | http://phil.ipal.org/ http://ka9wgn.ham.org/ |
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

phil-news-nospam (AT) ipal (DOT) net wrote:

On Sat, 06 May 2006 18:48:03 +0100 Steve Pugh <steve (AT) pugh (DOT) net> wrote:
| phil-news-nospam (AT) ipal (DOT) net wrote:
|>On Sat, 06 May 2006 10:38:02 +0100 Steve Pugh <steve (AT) pugh (DOT) net> wrote:
|>| phil-news-nospam (AT) ipal (DOT) net wrote:
|>|>On Fri, 05 May 2006 19:37:07 +0100 Steve Pugh <steve (AT) pugh (DOT) net> wrote:
|>|>| phil-news-nospam (AT) ipal (DOT) net wrote:
|>|>|>On Fri, 05 May 2006 08:10:01 +0100 Steve Pugh <steve (AT) pugh (DOT) 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.

|> 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?

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.
Who ever suggested that it can't be a block of text?

|>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"

|>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.

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.

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.

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.

You're rapidly approaching Luigi levels of obliviousness.

|>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.

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'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?

| 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 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?

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.

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.

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.

Steve
--
"My theories appal you, my heresies outrage you,
I never answer letters and you don't like my tie." - The Doctor

Steve Pugh <steve (AT) pugh (DOT) net> <http://steve.pugh.net/>

In article <e3ivqa03183 (AT) news2 (DOT) newsguy.com>, <phil-news-nospam (AT) ipal (DOT) net> wrote:

And I finally got things to work right with CSS tables, at least in Firefox.

Phil, would you mind showing how? And did you test it with IE6?

I still use simple tables in many of my layouts because I have never
been able to get CSS to work to my satisfaction. Even specifying
table elements in CSS don't behave as I would expect them to, in all
browsers.

Frankly, I don't see much difference between <td>...</td> and
<div>...</div>.

-A

On Sat, 06 May 2006 23:54:28 +0100 Steve Pugh <steve (AT) pugh (DOT) net> wrote:

phil-news-nospam (AT) ipal (DOT) net wrote:
On Sat, 06 May 2006 18:48:03 +0100 Steve Pugh <steve (AT) pugh (DOT) net> wrote:
| phil-news-nospam (AT) ipal (DOT) net wrote:
|>On Sat, 06 May 2006 10:38:02 +0100 Steve Pugh <steve (AT) pugh (DOT) net> wrote:
|>| phil-news-nospam (AT) ipal (DOT) net wrote:
|>|>On Fri, 05 May 2006 19:37:07 +0100 Steve Pugh <steve (AT) pugh (DOT) net> wrote:
|>|>| phil-news-nospam (AT) ipal (DOT) net wrote:
|>|>|>On Fri, 05 May 2006 08:10:01 +0100 Steve Pugh <steve (AT) pugh (DOT) 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/ |
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------