- From: David Latapie <david@empyree.org>
- Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2007 15:40:13 +0100
Hello and thank you for your reply, On Tue, 13 Feb 2007 14:35:15 +0100, Alexey Feldgendler wrote: > The fundamental difference between tables and definition lists is > that a table > is a two-dimensional mapping of a pair of axes to one value, and a > definition > list is a uni-dimensional mapping of a term to one or more > definitions. While > there are some cases when either a table or a definition list can be > used at > author's choice, generally their use cases are different. > > The most notable case when a table is inappropriate to replace a > definition list > is when a definition list contains multiple definitions for each term > or group > of terms. While multiple definitions can be either stuffed into one > table cell > or laid out in a row, both solutions seem like a workaround. IMHO, most tables (particularly on the Web and of course discarding layout tables) really are one-dimensional (cross-tabs are the two-dimensional ones). See below: Simple (one key, one value) ? TH TD ? DT DD More common (one key, several values) ? TH TD TD ? DT DD DD (Pure) Synonyms (several keys, one value) ? TH TD TH ? DT DT DD (semantically broken, do-not-use) Cross-tab ? TH TH TD ? <impossible> Complex cross-tab ? TH TH (colspan or rowspan) -----+-----+----- TH | | -----+ +------ TH | | -----+-----+----- TH | | -----+-----+----- ? <impossible> My humble point: <table> can do everything <dl> can, whilst the reverse is not true. He who can do more can do less. Any thought on this? -- </david_latapie> U+0F00 http://blog.empyree.org/en (English) http://blog.empyree.org/fr (Fran?ais) http://blog.empyree.org/sl (Slovensko)
Received on Tuesday, 13 February 2007 06:40:13 UTC