- From: Abigail <abigail@tungsten.gn.iaf.nl>
- Date: Sat, 11 May 1996 05:09:25 +0200 (MET DST)
- To: marcush@crc.ricoh.com (Marcus E. Hennecke)
- Cc: www-html@w3.org, boo@best.com
Marcus E. Hennecke wrote: ++ ++ On Fri, 10 May 1996 17:34:59 -0700, boo@best.com (Walter Ian Kaye) wrote: ++ > At 11:43p 05/10/96, Abigail wrote: ++ > >You, Melt van Schoor wrote: ++ > >++ I'm wondering if anyone have ever thought about adding something to HTML ++ > >++ that would allow me to place a specific graphic BENEATH a specific object or ++ > >++ part of a document? ++ > >You could also (mis)use a table. ++ ++ First of all, I should note that Abigail and Melt were probably talking ++ about two different things. I think Abigail was talking about captions ++ rather than background graphics. Yes, some time after I wrote my note I realized that as well. (But it's still a pity <caption> is missing in the <object> element). ++ ++ > Mis-use? Since when is resourcefulness a bad thing? ++ ++ It is not of course. However, you have to be sure to distinguish between ++ actual resources and certain browser features. I would call it a mis-use ++ if it would in any way limit my audience. This may happen if I mark ++ something up as a table when in fact it is not. ++ ++ > The hallmark of a cool ++ > application is when users can make it do things which the developers never ++ > dreamed of. Most of the time, <table> is just used to layout the web page. This works quite well when using a graphical browser. However, if the user (= reader) does something the developer (= author) has never dreamed off (say, using a sound browser), things can lead to sillyness. <table>s were designed for tabular data. If they are misused to force a graphical layout, one limits his/her audience. Abigail -- <URL: http://www.edbo.com/abigail/>
Received on Friday, 10 May 1996 23:08:30 UTC