RE: [WSG] Alphabetical Listing Buttons - What are you thiinking???
I'm afraid the link below proves quite the opposite: in IE6 there is always a gap at the right hand side, even when the row has wrapped around, which it does at random widths. Clearly a rounding error is causing problems, which is exactly what most of us expected. Incidentally, I have yet to hear anyone state a reason why this construct would be inaccessible to anyone - the simplicity of a single-row table ensures that it can correctly be linearised by any screen reader worth its salt, so (leaving semantics to once side for a moment) what is the harm in terms of practicalities? Mike -Original Message- From: listdad@webstandardsgroup.org [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Joe Gaspar already showed us that it is completely possible (and easy) to do! http://artideias.com/lab/css/listAlfa.html Jough ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] Alphabetical Listing Buttons
A: Top-posters who don't trim footers and .sigs. Q: What's the 2nd most annoying thing on usenet and in e-mail? A: Because it breaks the logical sequence of discussion. Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing? A: Top-posting. Q: What is the most annoying thing on usenet and in e-mail? On 06/07/12 15:34 (GMT+1000) Richard Czeiger apparently typed: From: Felix Miata [EMAIL PROTECTED] On 06/07/12 12:03 (GMT+1000) Richard Czeiger apparently typed: Well, Gaspar's code seems like a pretty easy solution - wouldn't you say? So simple it looks like an amateur did it. Felix - your attitude is not appreciated. There's absolutely no need for this kind of language whatsoever. Gaspar and everyone else on this list deserves respect. There was no lack of respect intended. That was just a way of saying no in answer to your question, another way of saying it looked bad, thus constituting a deficient solution. The way I read your original post, you in effect wanted a stretch entirely across the screen, which Gaspar's lists failed to do. There was no inference that Gaspar was in fact an amateur, only that his work looked amateurish in failing to meet your explicit design critera. I'd like to see anyone here do better than he did styling an ol to meet your criteria, as I don't think it possible. As to respect, web designers who routinely show no respect for personal computer user settings, which includes most web designers, have some nerve complaining about not getting respect. Everyone deserves it, but those who habitually fail to serve it have feeble standing to complain about not getting it. -- In everything, do to others what you would have them do to you. Matthew 7:12 NIV Team OS/2 ** Reg. Linux User #211409 Felix Miata *** http://mrmazda.no-ip.com/ ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
RE: [WSG] Alphabetical Listing Buttons
- Original Message - From: Felix Miata [EMAIL PROTECTED] So simple it looks like an amateur did it. Since when 'less is more' becomes 'less professional' ;) Besides, personal view + off list messaging = some privacy for all at least some I guess :) -- Cem Meric | http://www.kalkadoon.net/ Kalkadoon Corporate Solutions ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] Alphabetical Listing Buttons
So simple it looks like an amateur did it. May be but at least i try better ways you not. Ypou could see in WCAG1 the definition of tabular data Tabular information When tables are used to represent logical relationships among data -- text, numbers, images, etc., that information is called tabular information and the tables are called data tables. The relationships expressed by a table may be rendered visually (usually on a two-dimensional grid), aurally (often preceding cells with header information), or in other formats. -- Make it simple for the people -- http://www.artideias.com ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] Alphabetical Listing Buttons
So simple it looks like an amateur did it. May be but at least i try better ways you not. You could see in WCAG1 the definition of tabular data Tabular information When tables are used to represent logical relationships among data -- text, numbers, images, etc., that information is called tabular information and the tables are called data tables. The relationships expressed by a table may be rendered visually (usually on a two-dimensional grid), aurally (often preceding cells with header information), or in other formats. » http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG10/#tabular-information Here you can see too http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG10/#gl-table-markup Tables should be used to mark up truly tabular information (data tables). Content developers should avoid using them to lay out pages (layout tables). Tables for any use also present special problems to users of screen readers (refer to checkpoint 10.3). Using markup improperly -- not according to specification -- hinders accessibility. Misusing markup for a presentation effect (e.g., using a table for layout or a header to change the font size) makes it difficult for users with specialized software to understand the organization of the page or to navigate through it. Furthermore, using presentation markup rather than structural markup to convey structure (e.g., constructing what looks like a table of data with an HTML PRE element) makes it difficult to render a page intelligibly to other devices (refer to the description of difference between content, structure, and presentation). You can find a lot more, at the end you can still use table for menus or whatever you like, like everyone do at the beginning of BOOM of commercial internet. But that is not recommend for standards, that's the point. And that it is what we discuss where but you still discuss , it's not nice to see or your it's better even if you use tables and duplicate the code... You could use or example with table tr td div a href= title=A/a /div /td /tr tr td div a href= title=B/a /div /td /tr tr td div a href= title=C/a /div /td /tr For the some i use p a href= title=A/a a href= title=B/a a href= title=C/a It's your choice , it's your page ... may be when you star to thing big, global you see the diference And Yes, if it makes you happy iam still a amateur. -- Make it simple for the people -- http://www.artideias.com ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] Alphabetical Listing Buttons
I really do not see you guys sorting this out and im starting to get sick and tired of your squabblingso can you please take it off list **The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list & getting help**
Re: [WSG] Alphabetical Listing Buttons
... NO hacks and dead simple!... Are you sure? Regards, Rimantas -- http://rimantas.com/ ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] Alphabetical Listing Buttons
Richard Czeiger wrote: Gaspar! Nice solution! Cleanest yet! Have to say - I'm not a fan of Bob's approach. Yes, tables would solve a lot of the problems neatly. But sorry, it's simply not tabular data and come re-design time, tables simly don't have the flexibility of semantics. Who knows, my client might turn around and say, can we have that in three columns? In which case, I'd have to got back and redo all of them as a different kind of table. I guess this illustrates the point nicely: tables v semantics may not make much difference in 'one-off' situations, but they certainly make a HUGE difference when I have this kind of alhpabetical (or numeric/yearly) list appearing about 60 times across one of my sites! Thanks to those that contributed! Richard :o) Fair points Richard, but if I had the code 60 or times so on a site, I'd have it inserted as a single library item, thereby reducing it to one instance only, making any changes become simple. Horses for courses and all that. -- Best Regards, Bob McClelland Cornwall (UK) www.gwelanmor-internet.co.uk ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] Alphabetical Listing Buttons
On 06/07/11 21:20 (GMT+1000) Richard Czeiger apparently typed: Bob McClelland wrote: http://www.marscovista.fsnet.co.uk/template/alphabet.html Have to say - I'm not a fan of Bob's approach. Yes, tables would solve a lot of the problems neatly. But sorry, it's simply not tabular data Expanding on Bob's approach, you should be able to see why I disagree: http://mrmazda.no-ip.com/auth/alphabet.html Why do you think an alphabet shouldn't be considered tabular data? -- If you confess with your mouth, 'Jesus is Lord', and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. Romans 3:23 NIV Team OS/2 ** Reg. Linux User #211409 Felix Miata *** http://mrmazda.no-ip.com/ ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] Alphabetical Listing Buttons
Expanding on Bob's approach, you should be able to see why I disagree: http://mrmazda.no-ip.com/auth/alphabet.html Looks like an ordered list. ... Regards, Rimantas -- http://rimantas.com/ ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] Alphabetical Listing Buttons
On 06/07/11 09:04 (GMT-0600) Joe apparently typed: Felix Miata wrote: Why do you think an alphabet shouldn't be considered tabular data? I believe it depends on how you would like the alphabet to be depicted. In the example that you had provided (comparing the letter to its corresponding position) the data is in fact, tabular. No doubt. But, when simply displaying the alphabet with no relationships between the letters themselves then it should not be tabular. Tabular data 'should' contain both columns AND rows. I posit that Richard's alphabet contains an implied header row in addition to the explicit row. The alphabet can be a row array, as in Richard's case. Tables are usually compilations of arrays. What in the HTML specs is better designed to semantically present a row array than a table? -- If you confess with your mouth, 'Jesus is Lord', and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. Romans 3:23 NIV Team OS/2 ** Reg. Linux User #211409 Felix Miata *** http://mrmazda.no-ip.com/ ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
RE: [WSG] Alphabetical Listing Buttons - What are you thiinking???
How many times have I bit my tongue as Felix has blurted out his irrational ideas. Sorry to be negative, but this is just wrong. Semantic value has nothing to do with your spreadsheets. A list of letters in the alphabet is a list. It's not a table unless you are trying to make a relationship between the letters and something else. To relate a list of letters to your spreadsheet is spreading bad information. I'd hate to have someone join this list and think you were the resident expert and begin coding their pages as if they are working in Excel. Please, let's get back to the real world. Semantic value is using the tag that gives your content structural and contextual value. If you are displaying a group of objects that have no hierarchical value, give them an unordered list. If those objects have a hierarchy, as the alphabet does (a before b before c before d...) use an ordered list. If that group of objects have definitions and terms, use a definition list. If they are tabular, in that you can relate rows and columns, use a table. If none of the above, you should consider paragraphs or another container. Where does the spreadsheet come in? Why would you even consider how the content would display in a completely unrelated interface? For anyone that just joined this list. If Felix was starting to sound reasonable, please take some time to read Eric Meyer, the W3C, Zeldman.com, simplebits.com, and many other sites that accurately describe semantic markup. There, I've done it. I've broken my vow to not be negative on this list. But consider the spreadsheet to be one hell of a straw that broke this camel's back. Ted -Original Message- From: listdad@webstandardsgroup.org [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Felix Miata Sent: Tuesday, July 11, 2006 9:10 AM To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Subject: Re: [WSG] Alphabetical Listing Buttons On 06/07/11 18:05 (GMT+0300) Rimantas Liubertas apparently typed: Felix Miata wrote: Expanding on Bob's approach, you should be able to see why I disagree: http://mrmazda.no-ip.com/auth/alphabet.html Looks like an ordered list. An ordered list displayed unstyled would be displayed by every browser I've ever used as one column with 26 rows. That's how I would normally include a list in my spreadsheet. However, I see Richard's alphabet as a row array, which I would include in my spreadsheet using one row with 26 columns. AFAIK, there is no element in the (X)HTML specs semantically designed specifically for a row array, and why it is putatively semantic to use a table to do what Richard wants. -- If you confess with your mouth, 'Jesus is Lord', and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. Romans 3:23 NIV Team OS/2 ** Reg. Linux User #211409 Felix Miata *** http://mrmazda.no-ip.com/ ** 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 **
RE: [WSG] Alphabetical Listing Buttons
I posit that Richard's alphabet contains an implied header row in addition to the explicit row. What header is implied here? I see no implied header in an alphabet listing, unless you are talking about the implied header of order, in which case an ordered list tag is the obvious choice for markup here. Any list could have an implied header if you think about it in the way of order. I could order my shopping list! :) 1. Bananas 2. Milk 3. Butter 4. Eggs Jough ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] Alphabetical Listing Buttons
On 06/07/11 12:38 (GMT-0400) Ted Drake apparently typed: Semantic value has nothing to do with your spreadsheets. I meant to include the reason for my reference to spreadsheets, but got distracted and forgot. The idea came to me because of the paragraph following the sample table on http://www.communitymx.com/content/article.cfm?cid=0BEA6 , which is about semantic use of tables. -- If you confess with your mouth, 'Jesus is Lord', and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. Romans 3:23 NIV Team OS/2 ** Reg. Linux User #211409 Felix Miata *** http://mrmazda.no-ip.com/ ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] Alphabetical Listing Buttons
Any list could have an implied header if you think about it in the way of order. I could order my shopping list! :) 1. Bananas 2. Milk 3. Butter 4. Eggs You could, if your list was in order of importance, or alphabetical order, or in order that you pull them off of the shelves in order to optimize your trip through the store (which only us true geeks would take the time to worry about ;-)). It appears to me, however, that your list is in no particular order whatsoever, meaning you would use an unordered list. If that order has meaning to you, then perhaps an ordered list would be better. In either case, this is not tabular data. Matt Heerema www.directsteps.com ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] Alphabetical Listing Buttons - What are you thiinking???
Ted Drake wrote: For anyone that just joined this list. If Felix was starting to sound reasonable, please take some time to read Eric Meyer, the W3C, Zeldman.com, simplebits.com, and many other sites that accurately describe semantic markup. and, whilst you're reading Zeldman, take note of the fact that he says you can use a table, if it is simple and structured (and, says I, if it does a job which is either difficult or clumsy otherwise). - Best Regards, Bob McClelland Cornwall (UK) www.gwelanmor-internet.co.uk ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
RE: [WSG] Alphabetical Listing Buttons - What are you thiinking???
(and, says I, if it does a job which is either difficult or clumsy otherwise). No. Just because something is difficult doesn't mean you should resort to using something semantically incorrect. If everyone did that then there wouldn't be need for web standards in the first place (joke ;)). Plus, Gaspar already showed us that it is completely possible (and easy) to do! http://artideias.com/lab/css/listAlfa.html Jough ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
RE: [WSG] Alphabetical Listing Buttons - What are you thiinking???
I'm the first one to fight for semantic code, but I thought I'd play devils advocate this morning. You can be pragmatic about such things (using tables) - for instance from Gaspar's example, (0.4%*2)*26 + (26*3%) = 98.8% - which isn't 100%, thereby illustrating some of the limitations of CSS. For such a simple data structure as a table of one row and 26 cells there wouldn't be much of a problem for accessible browsers to convert that into something meaningful. So why not if tables work better at displaying this data. It's simple enough to be read properly by screen readers, and you could argue that a table of letters is a valid use of a table? - A -Original Message- From: listdad@webstandardsgroup.org [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (and, says I, if it does a job which is either difficult or clumsy otherwise). No. Just because something is difficult doesn't mean you should resort to using something semantically incorrect. If everyone did that then there wouldn't be need for web standards in the first place (joke ;)). Plus, Gaspar already showed us that it is completely possible (and easy) to do! http://artideias.com/lab/css/listAlfa.html Jough -- Internal Virus Database is out-of-date. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.394 / Virus Database: 268.8.0/353 - Release Date: 31/05/2006 ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] Alphabetical Listing Buttons
On 06/07/11 13:54 (GMT-0600) Joe apparently typed: On 06/07/11 20:37 (GMT+0100) Bob McClelland apparently typed: (and, says I, if it does a job which is either difficult or clumsy otherwise). Just because something is difficult doesn't mean you should resort to using something semantically incorrect. Bob didn't write just. What you quoted was used as conjuctive appendage to what you didn't quote: you can use a table, if it is simple and structured ... . Richard's alphabet is a simple row array, which is not naturally rendered by any popular graphical user agent as any kind of row list (dl, ul, ol). As a semantic dl, ul or ol, no user with page styles unavailable will see anything remotely resembling the row format that Richard wants, unlike what Bob proposed. A table is as good as (X)HTML provides to semantically provide a row array. -- If you confess with your mouth, 'Jesus is Lord', and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. Romans 3:23 NIV Team OS/2 ** Reg. Linux User #211409 Felix Miata *** http://mrmazda.no-ip.com/ ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] Alphabetical Listing Buttons
Felix Miata wrote: Richard's alphabet is a simple row array I'd tend to lean more towards can be interpreted as a simple row array. no user with page styles unavailable will see anything remotely resembling the row format that Richard wants Which should be fine, as styles are used for formatting. It seems natural that, without styles, users won't see a particular format... Anyway, at the end of the day, use a table if you think it's a row array, or use a list if you think an the alphabet is an ordered list of characters. As with those endless discussions of how to best mark up a breadcrumb trail (an unordered list, an ordered list, a nested ordered list of ordered lists ad infinitum, etc), there is no one true way of semantically marking up real world content like this with the limited, generic building blocks provided in HTML. P -- Patrick H. Lauke __ re·dux (adj.): brought back; returned. used postpositively [latin : re-, re- + dux, leader; see duke.] www.splintered.co.uk | www.photographia.co.uk http://redux.deviantart.com __ Web Standards Project (WaSP) Accessibility Task Force http://webstandards.org/ __ ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] Alphabetical Listing Buttons
On 06/07/11 21:41 (GMT+0100) Patrick H. Lauke apparently typed: Felix Miata wrote: Richard's alphabet is a simple row array I'd tend to lean more towards can be interpreted as a simple row array. I think that is a good leaning, but I was trying to interpret from Richard's perspective rather than an unbiased one. :-) no user with page styles unavailable will see anything remotely resembling the row format that Richard wants Which should be fine, as styles are used for formatting. It seems natural that, without styles, users won't see a particular format... Lest we forget, common GUI browsers pretty much all render unstyled text rather similarly in particular formats according to the markup. They all use some sort of internal style system that with a series of 26 characters marked up as ol, ul or dl produces a one single character wide column containing 26 rows, while all will make those same characters stretch across the screen without wrapping for lack of space marked up as a tr with 26 td elements. From a user perspective, seeing the former 26 rows of one character each I would likely think there was something wrong with that page. How often has anyone here seen the entire alphabet presented in a vertical array form rather than a horizontal array form? How many in elementary school didn't have them drawn as a row array above a chalkboard? How many can find a page like http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/index/list.html that displays a column array rather than a row array for the alpha shortcut links? I think this thread speaks a need for an array element, but it seems CSS3 has proposed one that is limited to a math context. -- If you confess with your mouth, 'Jesus is Lord', and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. Romans 3:23 NIV Team OS/2 ** Reg. Linux User #211409 Felix Miata *** http://mrmazda.no-ip.com/ ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] Alphabetical Listing Buttons
Hi all :o) This has certainly sparked an interesting conversation! While there seems to a lot of evangelising going on, let's remember that the reason we're here is to listen, learn and if we have an opinion, then to try and convince others that ours is a valid point. On that note, I'm sorry, but I haven't been convinced by the 'Alphabet as a Table' view... It just doesn't sit right. A table for me has to have **at least** two rows and two columns. Why? Only one row or only one column is a list - sorry, but it's as simple as that. Two columns, multiple rows might even be replaced by a definitition list. But one row can only be a list. An 'implied header' is, I think, stretching it too far. In respect to my original post - Gaspar's solution is both clean, cross-browser and (while not pixel perfect) certianly the most effective, semantic approach (IMHO). In relation to Pixel Perfection: Adam, you are right - it's never going to be perfect. Even using the maths to 5 decimal places, it's not going to work, BUT! A tabular approach isn't 100% successful either as it too will use pixels and thus, some letters will have larger widths and margins than others (though only by one pixel). So there we have it I don't think I've added anything new, but thanks to all who've put forward their points so impressively. Richard :o) ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
RE: [WSG] Alphabetical Listing Buttons
Clearly neither of you are power shoppers. What you need is a table, with columns for rating importance, quantity, unit price, total price, shelf location and shelf-life. Then you need a script to sort your table on the fly by any category. By the way, if you add Flour you can make banana cake. Yum. Geoff. Joe wrote: We are on exactly the same page. My shopping list IS in fact ordered by what items spoil quickest (although I never thought about that until after I ordered them). At any rate my shopping list is WAY off subject. I just thought we could all use a laugh today. :) Jough Matt Heerema wrote: Any list could have an implied header if you think about it in the way of order. I could order my shopping list! :) 1. Bananas 2. Milk 3. Butter 4. Eggs You could, if your list was in order of importance, or alphabetical order, or in order that you pull them off of the shelves in order to optimize your trip through the store (which only us true geeks would take the time to worry about ;-)). It appears to me, however, that your list is in no particular order whatsoever, meaning you would use an unordered list. If that order has meaning to you, then perhaps an ordered list would be better. In either case, this is not tabular data. == The information contained in this email and any attachment is confidential and may contain legally privileged or copyright material. It is intended only for the use of the addressee(s). If you are not the intended recipient of this email, you are not permitted to disseminate, distribute or copy this email or any attachments. If you have received this message in error, please notify the sender immediately and delete this email from your system. The ABC does not represent or warrant that this transmission is secure or virus free. Before opening any attachment you should check for viruses. The ABC's liability is limited to resupplying any email and attachments == ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] Alphabetical Listing Buttons
On 06/07/12 10:05 (GMT+1000) Richard Czeiger apparently typed: On that note, I'm sorry, but I haven't been convinced by the 'Alphabet as a Table' view... It just doesn't sit right. A table for me has to have **at least** two rows and two columns. Why? Only one row or only one column is a list - sorry, but it's as simple as that. Two columns, multiple rows might even be replaced by a definitition list. But one row can only be a list. I don't believe data and list items are mutually exclusive in the HTML spec, or in real life. Just because something can constitute a list doesn't mean the items in the list cannot be data. So, before you let the concrete set up around that opinion, and keeping in mind all the user agents most of us are familiar with display each item in an unstyled ul, ol or dl on its own row, ponder the very first sentence of the HTML table spec, in particular, the 9th 14th words: The HTML table model allows authors to arrange data -- text, preformatted text, images, links, forms, form fields, other tables, etc. -- into rows and columns of cells. http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/struct/tables.html I scanned without success looking for a minimum required number of columns or rows. -- If you confess with your mouth, 'Jesus is Lord', and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. Romans 3:23 NIV Team OS/2 ** Reg. Linux User #211409 Felix Miata *** http://mrmazda.no-ip.com/ ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] Alphabetical Listing Buttons
On 7/12/06, Geoff Pack [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Clearly neither of you are power shoppers. What you need is a table, with columns for rating importance, quantity, unit price, total price, shelf location and shelf-life. Then you need a script to sort your table on the fly by any category. Add a handheld stylesheet for good measure. Josh ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
RE: [WSG] Alphabetical Listing Buttons
And a form that allows you to add new items. Could use DOM scripting to insert the new items into the table - I think a database back-end is probably overkill... Joshua Street wrote: On 7/12/06, Geoff Pack [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Clearly neither of you are power shoppers. What you need is a table, with columns for rating importance, quantity, unit price, total price, shelf location and shelf-life. Then you need a script to sort your table on the fly by any category. Add a handheld stylesheet for good measure. Josh == The information contained in this email and any attachment is confidential and may contain legally privileged or copyright material. It is intended only for the use of the addressee(s). If you are not the intended recipient of this email, you are not permitted to disseminate, distribute or copy this email or any attachments. If you have received this message in error, please notify the sender immediately and delete this email from your system. The ABC does not represent or warrant that this transmission is secure or virus free. Before opening any attachment you should check for viruses. The ABC's liability is limited to resupplying any email and attachments == ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] Alphabetical Listing Buttons
True felix - a list is made up of data. However, I do not think it is made up of Tabular Data. In other words, data that SHOULD belong in a table. And no, I'm not letting the concreate set on that - in fact I offered the idea that some tabular data may even be formatted as a list (defintion). And yes, you can put lots of things in tables - even a list! However, if the table is entire made up of a list then ... use a list! It seems here that the only real question is if its too hard should I not bother with semantics. Well, Gaspar's code seems like a pretty easy solution - wouldn't you say? R :o) - Original Message - From: Felix Miata [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Sent: Wednesday, July 12, 2006 11:01 AM Subject: Re: [WSG] Alphabetical Listing Buttons On 06/07/12 10:05 (GMT+1000) Richard Czeiger apparently typed: On that note, I'm sorry, but I haven't been convinced by the 'Alphabet as a Table' view... It just doesn't sit right. A table for me has to have **at least** two rows and two columns. Why? Only one row or only one column is a list - sorry, but it's as simple as that. Two columns, multiple rows might even be replaced by a definitition list. But one row can only be a list. I don't believe data and list items are mutually exclusive in the HTML spec, or in real life. Just because something can constitute a list doesn't mean the items in the list cannot be data. So, before you let the concrete set up around that opinion, and keeping in mind all the user agents most of us are familiar with display each item in an unstyled ul, ol or dl on its own row, ponder the very first sentence of the HTML table spec, in particular, the 9th 14th words: The HTML table model allows authors to arrange data -- text, preformatted text, images, links, forms, form fields, other tables, etc. -- into rows and columns of cells. http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/struct/tables.html I scanned without success looking for a minimum required number of columns or rows. -- If you confess with your mouth, 'Jesus is Lord', and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. Romans 3:23 NIV Team OS/2 ** Reg. Linux User #211409 Felix Miata *** http://mrmazda.no-ip.com/ ** 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 **
Re: [WSG] Alphabetical Listing Buttons
On 06/07/12 12:03 (GMT+1000) Richard Czeiger apparently typed: Well, Gaspar's code seems like a pretty easy solution - wouldn't you say? So simple it looks like an amateur did it. If he made the characters big enough to see and, more importantly, made the group of buttons center across the entire viewport, like http://mrmazda.no-ip.com/auth/alphabet2.html , I might have a different opinion. -- If you confess with your mouth, 'Jesus is Lord', and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. Romans 3:23 NIV Team OS/2 ** Reg. Linux User #211409 Felix Miata *** http://mrmazda.no-ip.com/ ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] Alphabetical Listing Buttons
Richard's alphabet is a simple row array, which is not naturally rendered by any popular graphical user agent as any kind of row list (dl, ul, ol). As a semantic dl, ul or ol, no user with page styles unavailable will see anything remotely resembling the row format that Richard wants, unlike what Bob proposed. A table is as good as (X)HTML provides to semantically provide a row array. Felix, it seems that your entire argument is based on what the user sees without styling applied. HTML IS NOT A PRESENTATIONAL LANGUAGE. It should not matter what the user sees if they do not have styling applied, because if they disable styling they obviously don't care about how things look! Presentation is to be taken care of by stylesheets. I am new to this list, but I would think that these things would be obvious to anyone who claims to understand Web standards. These are very core, principle parts of the standards we are talking about here! HTML for semantic structure, CSS for presentation, DOM scripting for behavior. What a strange argument that is going on here... talking about data types in a language that is not typed... I think we should all just go with Geoff's suggestion for the grocery list and call it a night. Sorry for shouting. Matt Heerema www.directsteps.com ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
RE: [WSG] Alphabetical Listing Buttons
So simple it looks like an amateur did it. Russ Weakley mentioned comments such as this during WebStock. He pointed out that discussion lists, forums and blog comments are becoming full of rude remarks made by (primarily) young, white, male, socially-inept geeks. While I do not know Felix's race, gender or age I would suggest that he / she take a much more gentle approach to his / her comments on this list and people will be far more likely to listen. My 2c, and as 'payment' for this post: http://www.maccaws.org/kit/way-forward/#benefits The Business benefits of Web Standards - succinct, well reasoned points to beat management over the head with... Paul ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] Alphabetical Listing Buttons
Felix - your attitude is not appreciated. There's absolutely no need for this kind of language whatsoever. Gaspar and everyone else on this list deserves respect. Those who have been around longer and are more knowledgable should work to educate and inform those whose passion exceeds their experience. We were all newbies once, we were all amatuers, some of us even having worked professionally in the field since the earliest days of CSS are STILL learning... we live in a world which changes very rapidly (one of the things most developers love about it) and we need to have others who are tolerant enough to point out where we can improve ourselves or to fill the gaps in our knowledge. Unless you write the CSS spec and have contributed to every browser's development AND spent every night trying to find every possible hack and bug, then you TOO will continue to find that you do not know everything. Please make your arguments logical and above all, professional. If you can't - then I suggest you simply don't at all. Richard - Original Message - From: Felix Miata [EMAIL PROTECTED] So simple it looks like an amateur did it. ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
RE: [WSG] Alphabetical Listing Buttons
-Original Message-
From: listdad@webstandardsgroup.org
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Richard Czeiger
Sent: Tuesday, 11 July 2006 10:49 AM
To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org
Subject: [WSG] Alphabetical Listing Buttons
Hi All :o)
Wondering if you can help me solve an issue:
I'd like to have a list of alphabetical buttons at the top of
the page (you've all seen this kind of navigation).
What I'd like to do is have them with the following features:
1. Single pixel border
2. Some padding around the letter (to make them look nice)
3. A margin around each one that is statically sized
3. .. and this is the biggy ... I'd like their width the
stretch dependent on screen resolution.
Here's a screenshot:
http://www.grafx.com.au/wip/alphabet.gif
The pale pink of the inside of each button is the bit that
stretches...
The space between them is always the same.
Effectively the whole alphabet should stretch across the top
in one row.
Hi Richard,
Sorry, I don't have time to try this one out, but the obvious solution for
me would be to try this:
We have got 26 boxes next to each other. If we wanted to float them all next
to each other so that they take up 100% of the browser width, I would
presume each box would have a width of 3.84% (100% / 26 = 3.84).
Wouldn't that work? Something like:
li{margin:0; padding:0; float:left; width:3.84%; background:pink}
Then to get the white boxes to work I would probably play with
background-images (borders with 1px width would stuff up our percentage
calculation).
What do yoou think?
**
The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list getting help
**
