W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > July 2005

Re: FAQ about reasons behind CSS

From: Laurens Holst <lholst@students.cs.uu.nl>
Date: Tue, 05 Jul 2005 14:32:13 +0200
Message-ID: <42CA7DCD.2020104@students.cs.uu.nl>
To: Mikko Rantalainen <mikko.rantalainen@peda.net>
Cc: www-style@w3.org, www-html@w3.org

Mikko Rantalainen schreef:
>> As an example, look at: 
>> http://map.tni.nl/resources/msxsystemvars.php#USRTAB
>> Or the third table at: 
>> http://map.tni.nl/resources/msx_io_ports.php#switch_io
> 
> I disagree. Both examples you provided would be perfectly understandable 
> if the rowspan were removed and missing cells were filled with the 
> repetation of cell data.

The meaning would be different (even though the point would probably get 
accross as well). None of these addresses is called USRTAB. The entire 
range #F39A-#F3AC is called USRTAB.

When looking at defining those labels, the following code is incorrect 
(and impossible):
USRTAB: EQU #F39A
USRTAB: EQU #F39B
...

(where EQU is the assembly equivalent of define). Nowhere in any 
specification does it say that address #F39B has the label ‘USRTAB’.

So telling me to do it otherwise is like telling me to ‘remove those 
<em> tags’. It changes the meaning of the content.


> I consider colspan and rowspan as premature optimization. If you're 
> afraid of extra bytes to transfer, just apply compression. Reduntant 
> strings can be easily compressed. OTOH, if you're afraid that author is 
> required to type more characters, then perhaps we should remove all 
> those long closing tags, too? Any closing tag could be easily replaced 
> with </> because it's clear in XHTML anyway which starting tag it should 
> be matched with...

I have no concern over bytes whatsoever, really :).

All I care about is the content. I want those cells to be combined into 
one cell. The end result (the adjecent cells being combined) is a 
typographical effect that conveys the semantics I desire to express, and 
I think rowspan is suitable to express such a them.

Additionally: this also removes redundancy in the content (which is 
something else than saving bytes). I would say that is desirable as well.

With regard to skipping closing tags or using ‘</>’, in XHTML that is 
obviously not an option. Additionally: I am using an authoring tool to 
edit those pages, so whether or not closing tags are present does not 
concern me.

So, how the mechanism works precisely I do not care about, but there 
must be a means to do this. Right now we have col- and rowspan, so col- 
and rowspan I shall use. The semantics could be better, but it does the job.


~Grauw

-- 
Ushiko-san! Kimi wa doushite, Ushiko-san nan da!!
Received on Tuesday, 5 July 2005 12:33:09 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 27 April 2009 13:54:39 GMT