---Oleg Kobchenko wrote: > In dictionary page, I think replacing the top two tables > (for title and monad/dyad) with DIVs makes it worse in > a number of ways > * (mainly) DIVs do not convey the spacial layout > * layout is hard to maintain > * older browser compatibilty
Ignoring the DIVs vs tables issue for now ... I think it would be an improvement if it were clear, from the structural markup of the dictionary pages, that the monadic name, definition (and rank?) are linked and "belong together". Ditto for the dyadic name, definition and rank. Using the current markup structure, the names and the definitions are separated in different tables and there is no indication of their link. A possible table layout solution to that problem might be: <table> <thead> <tr> <td> Monadic name </td> <td> Dyadic name </td> </tr> </thead> <tbody> <tr> <td> Monadic defn content </td> <td> Dyadic defn content </td> </tr> </tbody> </table> Obviously the primitive symbol & ranks would still need to be added. > Historically, DIVs were imposed with justification > that layout can be customized in CSS. However, compared > to tables, they destroy the structural layout. When it > meant to be two-dimensional and specific: monad always > left, dyad right -- there is no need to rearrange. While pleasing and practical, I don't see the left/right spatial arrangement of the monadic and dyadic definitions as an absolute necessity. For example, I could imagine that for narrow media, it may be desirable rearrange the layout so that the dyadic name and definition followed the monadic name and definition. I think it would be easier to provide that sort of flexibility using DIVs to define the structure of the page elements. That is only my opinion, and if we can progress some of the other things, by agreeing to keep tables for layout, then that is still "better" from my point of view! > In such case not only does the table suffice, it gives > visual cues in the markup where things are supposed to be > on the page. You always know that TRs is are rows > and TDs go horizontally and vertically aligned. > > Another point, when you really need DIVs to fill out > spaces in and around table cells, then without tables > you just get all DIVs, which are hard to distinguish. > [snip] > > > > > From: "Sherlock, Ric" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > ---Sherlock, Ric wrote: > > > --- Roger Hui wrote: > > > > A "fairly simple" page is not a good place to start. > > > > You have to start with a really complex page to > > > > show that the proposed changes are capable of > > > > handling the complexity. > > > > > > That was why in my original proposal I also included d200.htm > > > as an example of how the markup and CSS could be changed to > > > cope with a more complex page. If you agree that it produces > > > a layout similar enough to the current one to be acceptable, > > > then I am happy to try and put together a list of > > > instructions similar to the one below for a more complex page. > > > > To make it easier to see the visual appearance of the > example pages, I've hosted > > them temporarily at the following URL: > > > > http://www.massey.ac.nz/~rsherloc/jdict/egpage0.html (intro.htm) > > http://www.massey.ac.nz/~rsherloc/jdict/egpage1.html (intro01.htm) > > http://www.massey.ac.nz/~rsherloc/jdict/egpage2.html (d200.htm) > > > > Suggestions for improving the structural markup of the > pages as well as the CSS > > are welcome. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
