Patrick H. Lauke wrote:
Quoting Designer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
A significant number of photographers regard a 'collection of
photographs' as being 'the work', and the way that work is shown (the
relationship between one image and it's adjacent images, and indeed,
to the whole) is of paramount importance. What I'm saying is best
illustrated by considering the case where the photographer is having a
show at a gallery : he doesn't just throw the images at the wall (so to
speak) - he spends ages deciding which image goes where, etc etc. My
point is that, in this case, Patrick's excellent rule of thumb that "
moving cells around changes the meaning of the data" applies to this
case also, and the work can be considered as tabular data. As I said,
it <em>is</em> subtle.
I think, though, that this is stretching the idea of "tabular". As I
said, the source order itself can be used to determine sequence. And, if
it's spatial relationship (what's above, what's below, etc...rather than
just what came before/after), then HTML is probably not a suitable
language to define that relationship in a satisfactory and semantically
unambiguous manner - perhaps other technologies like SVG (provided they
can encode the relationship in a non-visual manner as well) may be more
suited, not sure.
In any case, I'd say that this is stretching both the idea of what is
"tabular" and of what can be unequivocally represented by HTML alone.
It's also a slippery slope because, following the same rationale as a
photographer, a designer doesn't just "throw text and images on the
webpage", but carefully chooses their placement/layout...so a designer
may also claim that, because they spatial relationship conveys meaning,
a table would be appropriate for their layout.
Very muddy territory,
P
--Patrick H. Lauke
Muddy indeed! However, A web page is not a presentation of data in the
same way. Using the same analogy as before, the gallery is equivalent
to the web page, and the images are a small section of what appears in
(on) it. So, using tables for layout would be semantically equivalent
to changing the decor of the gallery, not the works that are being shown
in it. The works remain 'tabular', unless, of course, the exhibitor
doesn't care about where the pictures go, relative to each other.
This is fun! :-)
--
Bob
www.gwelanmor-internet.co.uk
*******************************************************************
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
*******************************************************************
