Re: "Tabular"/"Tabular Material" vs. "Table"
On Mon, Jun 24, 2002 at 10:26:29AM -0700, Mike Ressler wrote:
> Now that floating figures and tables have been moved off into their own
> submenu (Insert->Floats->Table), this isn't so big a deal anymore, but
> then people will ask "What's the difference between Insert->Table and
> Insert->Floats->Table?".
This question isn't magically solved by using a construct like Tabular
Material, which is in fact triply ambiguous.
I think the concept of floats containing content is intuitive and
well-documented enough for the natural phrasing to not be a problem.
> the garbage disposal in my kitchen sink ("Honey, what's this tabular
> material growing out of the disposal?").
heh :)
regards
john
--
"If a thing is not diminished by being shared, it is not rightly owned if
it is only owned & not shared."
- St. Augustine
Re: "Tabular"/"Tabular Material" vs. "Table"
On Tuesday 02 July 2002 4:50 pm, Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote: > From webster: > > One entry found for tabular. > Main Entry: tab·u·lar > Pronunciation:'ta-by&-l&r > Function: adjective > Etymology:Latin tabularis of boards, from tabula board, tablet > Date: circa 1656 > 1 : having a flat surface : LAMINAR > 2 a : of, relating to, or arranged in a table; specifically : set up > in rows and columns b : computed by means of a table > > > So I guess we should use "Tabular Material" then... You're jumping through linguistic hoops in an attempt to get away from the fact, plain and simple, that a "Table" can be inserted into a "Table Float". You should be finding a more elegant means of expressing "Table Float" if you are really worried by all of this. To continue the splitting of linguistic hairs, "Tabular Material" might /just/ be explainable as the stuff you put into a table. Words, numbers etc. I wouldn't be confident of surviving a visit from the "Elegant Language Police" with such a justification however. Regards, Angus
Re: "Tabular"/"Tabular Material" vs. "Table"
John Levon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: | On Mon, Jun 24, 2002 at 10:32:25PM +0200, Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote: > >> And you won't have any ambiguity between "Table Float" and "Table"? > | Nope. > | Insert->Float->Table float | Insert->Table > | Users are pretty used to hierarchical menus by now as long as they don't | go crazy ... > >> I'd prefere "Table Float" and "Tabular" > | I could be wrong, but tabular is not a noun in English, only LaTeXese. I | can't see the advantages of this to be honest. >From webster: One entry found for tabular. Main Entry: tab·u·lar Pronunciation: 'ta-by&-l&r Function: adjective Etymology: Latin tabularis of boards, from tabula board, tablet Date: circa 1656 1 : having a flat surface : LAMINAR 2 a : of, relating to, or arranged in a table; specifically : set up in rows and columns b : computed by means of a table So I guess we should use "Tabular Material" then... -- Lgb
Re: "Tabular"/"Tabular Material" vs. "Table"
On Mon, Jun 24, 2002 at 10:32:25PM +0200, Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote: > And you won't have any ambiguity between "Table Float" and "Table"? Nope. Insert->Float->Table float Insert->Table Users are pretty used to hierarchical menus by now as long as they don't go crazy ... > I'd prefere "Table Float" and "Tabular" I could be wrong, but tabular is not a noun in English, only LaTeXese. I can't see the advantages of this to be honest. > Please also remember that we have to take LaTeX terminoloty into > account. What do you mean by this ? Do we have a good reason to expose the LaTeXese name in the GUI rather than in the docs (where we explain the relationship blah blah blah) ? regards john -- "If a thing is not diminished by being shared, it is not rightly owned if it is only owned & not shared." - St. Augustine
Re: "Tabular"/"Tabular Material" vs. "Table"
On Mon, Jun 24, 2002 at 10:32:25PM +0200, Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote: ... > | For me again, the distinction between "Table" and "Tabular" is a bit too > | ambiguous. Adding "Float" to the menu name whenever a float is what we > | have, is both simple and semantically correct. > > And you won't have any ambiguity between "Table Float" and "Table"? > > I'd prefere "Table Float" and "Tabular" Yes, even better. > Please also remember that we have to take LaTeX terminoloty into > account. Also for that reason. > -- > Lgb > > Martin msg39808/pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: "Tabular"/"Tabular Material" vs. "Table"
Martin Vermeer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: | On Mon, Jun 24, 2002 at 10:26:29AM -0700, Mike Ressler wrote: > > >> So, I'm in favor of renaming it if a consistent, non-ambiguous solution >> can be found. Keep in mind the fact that if one inserts a >> Insert->Floats->Table, one then needs to insert a Insert->Table into it. >> That's a bit too ambiguous for my taste. >> >> Mike > | Just for the record, the ambiguity can also be resolved in the other | direction: by always calling a LaTeX Figure a "Figure Float" and a | LaTeX Table a "Table Float". And yes, then you can insert a Table into a | Table Float, if you feel so disposed. > | For me again, the distinction between "Table" and "Tabular" is a bit too | ambiguous. Adding "Float" to the menu name whenever a float is what we | have, is both simple and semantically correct. And you won't have any ambiguity between "Table Float" and "Table"? I'd prefere "Table Float" and "Tabular" Please also remember that we have to take LaTeX terminoloty into account. -- Lgb
Re: "Tabular"/"Tabular Material" vs. "Table"
On Mon, Jun 24, 2002 at 10:26:29AM -0700, Mike Ressler wrote: > So, I'm in favor of renaming it if a consistent, non-ambiguous solution > can be found. Keep in mind the fact that if one inserts a > Insert->Floats->Table, one then needs to insert a Insert->Table into it. > That's a bit too ambiguous for my taste. > > Mike Just for the record, the ambiguity can also be resolved in the other direction: by always calling a LaTeX Figure a "Figure Float" and a LaTeX Table a "Table Float". And yes, then you can insert a Table into a Table Float, if you feel so disposed. For me again, the distinction between "Table" and "Tabular" is a bit too ambiguous. Adding "Float" to the menu name whenever a float is what we have, is both simple and semantically correct. My 0.02 Euro (soon to be worth more than US$0.02 :-) Martin msg39778/pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: "Tabular"/"Tabular Material" vs. "Table"
On Fri, 21 Jun 2002, robin wrote:
> John Levon wrote:
> >JMarc suggested I ask here about this terminology. My question is, what
> >is our justificatino for exposing the user to the unusual formulation
> >"Tabular Material", or the even worse "Tabular" ?
> >
> Beats me.
This is another of those things that was argued about back when the Earth
was young and dinosaurs roamed the land. The issue was how to make a
distinction between LaTeX's tabular - the actual table material - and a
table, which is the floating thing you put a tabular into. A similar
problem was posed by "figure", but at least there we could call the actual
picture a graphic. In tabular form :-) we have
Content Float
--
graphic ---> Figure
??? ---> Table
So, the problem is how to properly label the ???. We compromised on
"tabular material" so we could go back to arguing about more important
things.
> >What are the problems with using "Table" everywhere throughout the GUI
> >and the documentation (except where specifically related to the LaTeX
> >construct) ?
> >
> None, as far as I can see. Maybe it's a LaTeX thang. In general I'm in
> favour of making the GUI and the documentation as close as possible to
> conventional word-processors, HTML editors etc.
Now that floating figures and tables have been moved off into their own
submenu (Insert->Floats->Table), this isn't so big a deal anymore, but
then people will ask "What's the difference between Insert->Table and
Insert->Floats->Table?". LaTeX chose to solve it by using the names
Tabular and Table. Just because everyone else chose the wrong thing :-)
doesn't mean we need to change. On the other hand, I've never particularly
liked "tabular material". Kinda sounds like the corroding metal encrusting
the garbage disposal in my kitchen sink ("Honey, what's this tabular
material growing out of the disposal?").
So, I'm in favor of renaming it if a consistent, non-ambiguous solution
can be found. Keep in mind the fact that if one inserts a
Insert->Floats->Table, one then needs to insert a Insert->Table into it.
That's a bit too ambiguous for my taste.
Mike
--
Mike Ressler
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
OK, I'm lame: I don't have my own website ...
