Patrick Lauke wrote:
Andrew Maben
This may be heresy, but I think this might
be a perfectly legitimate use of a (properly
marked-up) table?
Tables are for tabular data (where rows/columns have a
very strictly determined relationship, and moving cells
around changes the meaning of the data). The data in
this case(the images) isn't tabular. Ergo, no,
it's not legitimate if you want to go by the standards.
P
Sometimes a collection images can indeed be tabular. If the relationship
between the images is important (like when you want to group like with
like), moving them around does alter the meaning of the images as a
collection. Sometimes the relationship is very subtle - I have a number
of examples of this : see www.kernowimages.co.uk , for example, and look
at the thumbnail pages. The position of each thumbnail is important, and
changing it changes the relationship between the images. In this case I
haven't actually used a table, but I would have no qualms about doing so
because I consider the 'data' to be 'tabular'.
Tabular data doesn't have to be mathematical, or even involve any words.
:-)
Just my 2p's worth.
--
Bob
www.gwelanmor-internet.co.uk
*******************************************************************
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
*******************************************************************
