Re: how to deal with TABLE heartburn

to follow up on what Daniel Dardailler said:

> > I must admit that I do not understand why the proposed attributes are
> > named AXIS and AXES. It is a geometrical metaphor which is not obvious to
> > the uninitiated. I am inclined to agree with Al that the names could be
> > changed, but would like to know what the original motivations for the
> > names AXIS and AXES were.
> Same reaction here. Not only I find the names non trivial but in
                                                ^^^^^^^^^^^ There
is a cross-language problem, here.  If you are agreeing with
Jason, I suspect you mean "not critical" or "less than obvious."
"Non-trivial" would be used here to indicate "significant" which
would on the whole argue against their being changed.
> addition, they are too close to each other.

The names are close because the relationship is essentially the
same.  The difference is that one gives you information
immediately as a string and the other indirectly by references to
cell contents.

AXES gives you grouping for any groups which have root cells
that actually exist in the table and which act to define the
group.  AXIS extends this up one level to a group which has no
root cell you can point to among the table cells, but which are
still potentially interesting in alternate presentations.

For an example application, note the way that MegaZone used such
an attribute as a prefixed label.

-- Al

Received on Wednesday, 22 October 1997 08:06:00 UTC