From: Orion Adrian <orion.adrian@gmail.com>

Date: Tue, 30 Aug 2005 13:58:02 -0400

Message-ID: <abd6c80105083010588ff692a@mail.gmail.com>

To: www-html@w3.org

Date: Tue, 30 Aug 2005 13:58:02 -0400

Message-ID: <abd6c80105083010588ff692a@mail.gmail.com>

To: www-html@w3.org

On 8/30/05, Laurens Holst <lholst@students.cs.uu.nl> wrote: > Orion Adrian schreef: > >> I see two ways to sort tables with rowspans: > >> 1. For the purpose of sorting, the cells with a rowspan could just be > >> 'expanded' to n separate cells. When they end up next to eachother > >> again, they can be re-combined. > >> 2. The sorting can consider the rowspanned cells to be 'grouped'. That > >> means the rows those cells are in are only moved as a whole. The values > >> inside the group are also sorted. Like 'group by' in SQL. > >> > >> I think solution 2 is the best one. > > My example was the wrong example, but column reordering is also a > > problem. Especially with sorting since it is often useful to reorder > > columns after a sort to put the primary sort key as the first column. > > > > The question is can you produce an algorithm that can intelligently > > determine between 1 and 2 above? There will always be situation now > > where 1 or 2 is the wrong approach. I have yet to find a method that > > clearly indicates where one is a better solution in any given > > situation. > > > A user agent can just pick one, it doesn't need to intelligently > determine anything. Both solutions are reasonable. Maybe a UA can let > the user pick his one, if it thinks providing such a choice gives more > value to the product. When the sorting is implemented through > JavaScript, the website author can determine which method he thinks fits > his table best. Question: Is the shift from this: A | B | C ------------ C1 | 2 | 3 C1 | 4 | 4 C4 | 5 | 6 C4 | 7 | 8 to: ------------ C1 B | C ------- 2 | 3 4 | 4 C4 B | C ------- 5 | 6 7 | 8 structural or presentational? -- Orion AdrianReceived on Tuesday, 30 August 2005 17:58:08 GMT

*
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50
: Tuesday, 27 March 2012 18:16:04 GMT
*