Tables wouldn't do this. Also, lists are just easier for me to use
than tables, and tables create more code weight than do lists.
Anybody have thoughts on this?
Well, for me, the deciding factor on using a table is if the
elements contained in the table are 2 dimensional.
I agree with you, however for the sake of completeness let me add
that two-dimensionality doesn't mandate tables per se. A definition
list is also two-dimensional -- N rows by N columns, with the
structural peculiarity that first column is DT (inline) and the
subsequent 1-N columns are DDs (block), structurally resembling a
table in which the first cell of each row is a TH.
Very good catch, Paul. I agree with you completely. I guess I was so
bent on pointing out that if the group of elements fails the test that
it is not a table. However, I did forget that other groups of
elements may meet the "two-dimensional" status (such as definition
lists as you point out) and are also not a table. Almost sounds like
we need to put together a decision tree :)
Re: decision tree.
I'd love to help with this.
One contribution (that may be off-base): definition lists are
two-dimensional, but only with two "columns" and unlimited "rows." This
is because the dt's are all related (the are all terms), but the first
dd of each block is no more related than any random dd from each block
-- dd's are unordered, and so all the group of all dd's in a block are
related to all dd's in another block as definition data.
My "decision tree" revolves around what relationships matter and have
meaning. This is sort of what I go through:
Do otherwise separate-but-similar items gain meaning in a group?
Consider a list.
Are all items equivalent, and only relate to the group? Consider an
unordered list.
Are all items equivalent, and they all relate back to a single thing?
Consider a definition list with a single definition term.
Is there meaning contained in the order in which the items are listed?
Does the meaning change if the order changes? Consider an ordered list.
If you have more than one list, and the lists relate to each other in
some manner, consider nesting lists such that the relationship is
represented by a list as per the above choices.
Are all list groups equivalent, and each is a definition list?
Consider making a single definition list with multiple terms.
Are you considering ordered lists nested within an ordered list? Is
there a relationship between items at the same depth but of different
lists? Consider instead using a table and represent this meaning as
rows and columns.
--
Ben Curtis
WebSciences International
http://www.websciences.org/
v: (310) 478-6648
f: (310) 235-2067
**
The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**
