OK asdf, no more jokes from me about "sides" from now on, promise!
Because it's a *list* of links. Believe me- I understand your point of view,
but lists make so much more sense for a menu.
That is the trouble, what is the sense in your "lists make so much more
sense for a menu" *beyond* my earlier recommendation to use <ul> rather
No, I didn't miss it... I was responding to your advocacy on using tables as
a menu structure, not on your prior post.
I am saying that you cannot leave out *why* I advocate a formal html
list (ul or ol) over a table for menu items and not misunderstand me. I
have a certain view of what semantic meaning is in relation to html
elements and what a table is and what a list is and the idea that a
table is not semantically wrong follows from what i imagine are these
first principles.
A menu is a list by it's very nature. A representation of planets is data.
Pretty simple really.
Time to say what your idea of data is that excludes the possibility of
menu items being data. A number of things relating to planets is
information. So is a number of menu items, information; with the usually
added linking mechanism (except sometimes for the 'current').
Why is a series of points of information in the one so datarish in the
one case and not the other?
Not necessarily to a 'screen reader'.
Not necessarily to a 'screen reader' where the context is clear for a
list but not a table? Always happy to learn about screen readers. Tell
me: Why would a list of menu items that said "Home" and "About us" be
more intelligible than a table with cells via a screen reader?
Context alone does NOT explain content. Any reading about accessibility
issues in web design will tell you this.
Will it now? I must have missed the bleeding obvious it in spite of
reading my fair share. I just can't see how a table relating prices to
products needs content *explained*. It is often bleeding obvious. I
can't see how a list of planet sizes is *explained* by being in a list.
I don't think many people realise *sufficiently* that users do not get
to see mark-up and would not know if a list was in an HTML list, a table
or in divs or other elements.
The whole idea of the appropriate element to use has, contrary to many
people's ideas, to do with what presentation will best communicate the
information. And you have said nothing to show that an HTML table can
*never ever* be as good for this purpose as an HTML list for a list.
I'm sorry, but it's just nonsense to reject quality for the sake of
convenience, especially when the quality solution is actually easier (and,
importantly, smaller) to implement.
I am not rejecting quality. You are assuming what we are debating. You
are wrong to suppose that a table is *always* inferior. There are cases
where ordered list information is easier to style in some ways in a two
col table rather than an OL. There is an increase in quality, not a
decrease.
I never said that tables aren't "kosher", merely that there's a better
alternative.
You are saying that they are not quite the correct thing to use out of
two choices, no matter what the circumstances. I am saying they can be
quite the correct thing. You are not saying merely that one is generally
a better way than the other. That's me that says this.
Gee asdf, let's remember that you are you and I am me. You are a fine
upstanding commonsensical fellow. I am an out of control ET freak
stalking cinema houses for decent films. We could not be more different.