- From: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
- Date: Tue, 19 Apr 2005 10:59:22 +0000 (UTC)
On Fri, 3 Dec 2004, Afternoon wrote: > > > > The data grid idea that I assumed Ben was referring to isn't quite the > > same as a table, although I'm finding it difficult to justify the > > difference. From a practical standpoint the difference between a > > <table> and a data grid is that the table's data is all in a DOM > > content model, whereas the data grid can be dynamically populated from > > script, one row at a time, so that only the displayed portion need be > > in memory at any one time. > > I don't believe the data necessarily needs to be absent from the > content, although it certainly could be. There are cases where it must. For example, the data grid for a mail application showing a mailbox with 10,000 mails. You simply cannot have all 10,000 DOM rows in memory. It doesn't work. > > Another difference is that tables have a legacy of rendering semantics > > which we can't do much about, whereas for the data grid we want to be > > able to use GUI-specific native controls (or native-looking controls) > > which have features such as clickable column headers, draggable column > > separators, etc. Also, datagrids are limited to text in each cell > > (with one icon per row), rows can be selected, data can be marked as > > editable, etc. > > This is my key point. These features increase the usability of data > grids in native controls. Adding them to browsers would create more > functional applications for less work on the author's part. Right. > > There is a big overlap, but they aren't the same. > > Indeed, a browser that assumed every <table> was data-bearing and should > have controls displayed would be all but useless. Sadly, from a pragmatic point of view this is indeed the case. -- Ian Hickson U+1047E )\._.,--....,'``. fL http://ln.hixie.ch/ U+263A /, _.. \ _\ ;`._ ,. Things that are impossible just take longer. `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
Received on Tuesday, 19 April 2005 03:59:22 UTC