wow, paul - breathe! :oP
of course you're right about the concpet of 'dog' not being able to be
placed in a page and the fact that an image is no closer to the idea of 'dog
and the word 'd-o-g'.
However, we're looking at the need to define a <dt> within a context. So to
use your example below for musical instruments...
In the frist example the image is in the <dt>, I'd think this would be the
kind of set up for a Photo Gallery of Instruments.
However, for the second example with the title Mbira Dzavadzimu in the <dt>,
you'd probably find this in a more formal encyclopaedic environment.
After all, SOMETHING has to go in the <dt> and it makes sense to make it the
one thing that is MOST appropriate.
Taking your logic to the nth degree you might as well put everything in a
<dt>.
True: A photograph isn't a 'definition' but it's also not the primary
identifer for most scenarios outside a Photo Gallery. The reason I know this
is because if you pointed me to a URL and I first asked what I'd see there,
you'd tell me "its a Mbira Dzavadzimu", you might even say "its a photo of a
Mbira Dzavadzimu" if it was an especially spiffy photo but you wouldn't just
say "a photo" which is exactly what <img /> is interpreted as. It's
technically correct but not especially helpful. Textual data, in this case
and most others, seems to be the most appropriate way of initially
identifying an object/concept, at leats in the telecommunciations medium.
R :o)
Doggonit! ;oP
----- Original Message -----
From: "Paul Novitski" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <wsg@webstandardsgroup.org>
Sent: Wednesday, April 05, 2006 4:34 PM
Subject: Re: [WSG] Definition List for Products/Items with Image
At 05:37 PM 4/4/2006, Richard Czeiger wrote:
In your example, "Chien", "Perro", "Inu" are representations of the
concept of 'dog' and therefore would fall into the category of signifiers
(<dd>).
True: a photograph is not a definition of a dog, however, a photograph of
a dog is not the dog itself, but rather a repsentation.
You guys crack me up! You seem to be saying that, of all these
signifiers -- "dog," "chien," [doggy photo], etc. -- it's the one that is
most like a dog, or mostly IS a dog, that deserves to go in the DT. What,
you think the word "dog" is more like an actual dog than a photograph of a
dog? Doggone it, the word "dog" is no more a dog than a potato chip. For
proximity to the real thing, I'll put my money on the photograph of the
dog which is at least a direct physical reflection of an actual dog.
Words like "dog" and "chien" are just indirect reflections of dogs in the
murky, ripply human pond.
Until you figure out how to get an actual dog into a web page, all you
have to work with is one representation or another. There is no real dog
on the page, you know, so all your dictionary list is doing is defining
one symbol with other symbols. You use DTs to say, "Here are some things
you may not understand that I'm about to explain with the following
ddefinitions." In one dictionary list, "dog" will be the DT and "chien"
will be the DD. In another, [fidophoto] will be the DT and "My dog Binky"
will be the DD. It all has to do with what you intend to elucidate.
So here I've got a collection of items:
- photograph of a Zimbabwean mbira
- the title "Mbira Dzavadzimu"
- the caption "Hand-crafted by Fradreck Mujuru, Harare, 2005"
Does the title help define the photograph or does the photograph help
define the title? Does seeing the photo of the musical instrument help
explain its name, or does its name help explain the photo? Both, of
course: they both contribute in different ways to our understanding of the
whole. Whether I write:
<dt><img src="mbira.jpg" /></dt>
<dd>Mbira Dzavadzimu</dd>
<dd>Hand-crafted by Fradreck Mujuru, Harare, 2005</dd>
or:
<dt>Mbira Dzavadzimu</dt>
<dd><img src="mbira.jpg" /></dd>
<dd>Hand-crafted by Fradreck Mujuru, Harare, 2005</dd>
the communication is nearly identical, and the difference so obscure as to
be practicably irrelevant to the glossary of musical instruments or the
product catalog or the website portfolio we're presenting.
Now, don't come whining to me that you can't put an image in a DT because
an image isn't a "term." Dang it, a photograph isn't a "definition"
either. We're using a semantic structure to help make metaphorical sense
of information, fer crying out loud. Don't be so gol-darned fiddly that
you spend hours trying to figure out how to float one DD to the left and
the DT and all the other DDs to the right! Put the gol-danged image in
the DT, float it left, and you're done. Get on with your lives, now!
Scoot!
Your ornery ole Pa
******************************************************
The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
******************************************************
******************************************************
The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
******************************************************
