- From: Rafał Pietrak <rafal@ztk-rp.eu>
- Date: Fri, 20 Jun 2014 18:00:51 +0200
- To: www-style list <www-style@w3.org>
Hello the list, Currently I'm working on styling my pages towards responsive presentation on moblie (small width) devices. But I'm stuck with styling the tables. I did some background checking, and found historical examples of styling tables, which would be quite suitable for such responsive cases. Those examples from the past are: 1. there is mendeleyev periodic table of elements. As a "table", it's content fit into a spreadsheet one row per element; getting columns like: name of element, atomic weight, electron configuratnion, a "two-letter" symbol, density at notmal preasure/temperature, etc, etc. 1.1 but we normally present that "table" in quite a different way: each "row" of such table is painted onto a single tile: one tile per table row (of a particular element features). We then arrange those tiles into yet another table, ... but thet's not my point here, so let's forget it for now. 2. another example is library catalog index card. Such index card contain a "one row of data" regarding a particular publication. And again, if such catalog was kept in a spreadsheet, one row would contain information that publication. Still, that information was printed on one face of an index card in a "tile" fashion, so that all the information from a single "row of data" is arranged in 2D on such card, and information from any particular column is positioned at certain (x,y) on that it. It looks to me, that the arrangement of table row information onto a surface of a "tile in a deck" is just "styling a table". As such, it should be possible in CSS. I think it is desirable. If I was to sugest syntax; I'd opt for "table-level" atribute, as this should change the styling of the entire table (or at least thead/tfoot/tbody parts). So "display: [table-tiled | table-rows]" at the "<colgroup>" token, look most apropriate to me. Naturaly, this is only switching the mode of display, not syntax to design a tile - the later is not clear to me, yet. Does it look reasonable? -R
Received on Friday, 20 June 2014 16:01:41 UTC