In article <ba9a0$48b37525$40cba7c7$22582@NAXS.COM>,
"Jonathan N. Little" <lws4art@central.net> wrote:

> dorayme wrote:
>
> > Whether you use an ordered list or a table, you are conveying more or
> > less the same thing.
>
>
> No not really. A list is a list, with a singular "linear" relationship:
> start a 1, then to 2 then to 3...
>

Not really. The relationship between the number of an ordered list item
and the list item itself is one relationship you miss considering. Not
even on your radar it seems. Pity. I admire some of your technical
fireworks. You seem content with dismissive elementary spiels where I am
concerned. Perhaps I deserve nothing better; I can't quite get myself to
believe this yet but maybe I will and should prepare for that day by
boning up on the quickest way to get to The Gap at Sydney Heads... <g>

> > That is what I meant by semantic equivalence. The
> > advantage of a table is much greater presentational flexibility.
> >
>
> Not sure how a table add more flexibility.

You forgotten already how you proposed to the OP a smart way of putting
in ordered numbers into a table col with styling... showing one aspect
of flexibility not so easily done with an OL? And there is more that can
be said here but perhaps I should stop, you are unlikely to agree or
even comprehend the least thing I say. Good luck to you Jonathan...

--
dorayme

dorayme wrote:
> In article <ba9a0$48b37525$40cba7c7$22582@NAXS.COM>,
> "Jonathan N. Little" <lws4art@central.net> wrote:
>
>> dorayme wrote:
>>
>>> Whether you use an ordered list or a table, you are conveying more or
>>> less the same thing.
>>
>> No not really. A list is a list, with a singular "linear" relationship:
>> start a 1, then to 2 then to 3...
>>
>
> Not really. The relationship between the number of an ordered list item
> and the list item itself is one relationship you miss considering.

I would argue that the ordinal numbers is a list are not at all the same
as the data within a table. It is not really the "data" makes little
difference if

1. fee
2. fie
3. foe
4. fum

A) fee
B) fie
C) foe
D) fum

or implied:

* fee
* fie
* foe
* fum

Where as the first column of a table's data is relevant and the
relationship by row and column is significant.

fin | fish | water
foot | dog | land
wing | bird | air

With or without ordinal numbers a tabular data within has a significance
with respect to row column position. It is that organizational
relationship that differentiates it from a list.


> Not
> even on your radar it seems. Pity. I admire some of your technical
> fireworks. You seem content with dismissive elementary spiels where I am
> concerned. Perhaps I deserve nothing better; I can't quite get myself to
> believe this yet but maybe I will and should prepare for that day by
> boning up on the quickest way to get to The Gap at Sydney Heads... <g>
>

?

>>> That is what I meant by semantic equivalence. The
>>> advantage of a table is much greater presentational flexibility.
>>>
>>
>> Not sure how a table add more flexibility.
>
> You forgotten already how you proposed to the OP a smart way of putting
> in ordered numbers into a table col with styling... showing one aspect
> of flexibility not so easily done with an OL?

What do you mean? I employed the same method using CSS counters. The
flexibly had to do with CSS, the elements involved where irrelevant.

My point was the "features" of a table does not simplify anything. How is:

<table>
<tr><td>fee</td></tr>
<tr><td>fie</td></tr>
<tr><td>foe</td></tr>
<tr><td>fum</td></tr>
</table>


easier than:

<ol>
<li>fee</li>
<li>fie</li>
<li>foe</li>
<li>fum</li>
</ol>



--
Take care,

Jonathan
-------------------
LITTLE WORKS STUDIO
http://www.LittleWorksStudio.com

In article <a99be$48b3f723$40cba7c7$6378@NAXS.COM>,
"Jonathan N. Little" <lws4art@central.net> wrote:

> dorayme wrote:
> > In article <ba9a0$48b37525$40cba7c7$22582@NAXS.COM>,
> > "Jonathan N. Little" <lws4art@central.net> wrote:
> >
> >> dorayme wrote:
> >>
[things... that I have no time to seriously answer this morning. Take
that as a mark of respect to your post. Not always something I have.]


I will answer your post later. Obviously, I am not going to get you to
see what I mean by semantic equivalence between an ordered list and a 2
col table easily, you putting up every kind of block from seeing what is
essentially a simple observation of mine.

As with many simple observations as well as not so simple ones, serious
errors can creep in and I would be interested to know if there are such
in my idea. I am saying it is an open question whether I am correct and
I have to identify why (apart from my extreme unpopularity) I only ever
have gotten blank stares online when mentioning it.

There may be some legitimate and respectable way you guys are seeing
things that I am missing. But I never even get the time of day on it.
The OP asks me what I meant. I said. And I gave a link to further
discussion. But the person I address simply does not know what to make
of it, so I better think of a better way of explaining it. Even Ben C
politely declined to discuss it once, and if anyone can understand
anything it is Ben.

Quite often, in my experience, if an idea is so coldly received, it is
because it is communicated in a form that makes it sound simply false or
crazy, there being no handle for the receiver to intelligently discuss
it. Hence your first dismissive response where you repeated so
innocently that a list was a list, one thing after another and a table
was a table, things relating blah blah. I do not blame you.

And I do not blame myself for delaying my response. It was much easier
saying the above than dealing with your arguments and questions. It is
not my fault that clients conspire with each other - I did not know any
of mine knew each other - to land work on my desk at the same time
instead of a gentle staged workload throughout the year! Everyone
conspires against me, I am used to it. <g>

--
dorayme

dorayme wrote:
> In article <a99be$48b3f723$40cba7c7$6378@NAXS.COM>,
> "Jonathan N. Little" <lws4art@central.net> wrote:
>
>> dorayme wrote:
>>> In article <ba9a0$48b37525$40cba7c7$22582@NAXS.COM>,
>>> "Jonathan N. Little" <lws4art@central.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> dorayme wrote:
>>>>
> [things... that I have no time to seriously answer this morning. Take
> that as a mark of respect to your post. Not always something I have.]

Ah thanks, um, I think...

>
>
> I will answer your post later. Obviously, I am not going to get you to
> see what I mean by semantic equivalence between an ordered list and a 2
> col table easily, you putting up every kind of block from seeing what is
> essentially a simple observation of mine.

Maybe because they are semantically different might have something to do
with it.


--
Take care,

Jonathan
-------------------
LITTLE WORKS STUDIO
http://www.LittleWorksStudio.com

In article <8adfb$48b49b7c$40cba7ac$4899@NAXS.COM>,
"Jonathan N. Little" <lws4art@central.net> wrote:

> dorayme wrote:
> > In article <a99be$48b3f723$40cba7c7$6378@NAXS.COM>,
> > "Jonathan N. Little" <lws4art@central.net> wrote:
> >
> >> dorayme wrote:
> >>> In article <ba9a0$48b37525$40cba7c7$22582@NAXS.COM>,
> >>> "Jonathan N. Little" <lws4art@central.net> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> dorayme wrote:
> >
> >
> > I will answer your post later. Obviously, I am not going to get you to
> > see what I mean by semantic equivalence between an ordered list and a 2
> > col table easily, you putting up every kind of block from seeing what is
> > essentially a simple observation of mine.
>
> Maybe because they are semantically different might have something to do
> with it.

You forget to add:

"and this is glaringly obvious to everyone but you (dorayme)".

Here's a possibility that understandably escapes your mention: that you
(and many others) are operating with an essentially false or
dilettantish idea of what it is for two things to mean the same.

I will think of a way to take you through my thoughts as best as I can,
the previous clearly not having done the job.

--
dorayme

In article <a99be$48b3f723$40cba7c7$6378@NAXS.COM>,
"Jonathan N. Little" <lws4art@central.net> wrote:

> dorayme wrote:
> > In article <ba9a0$48b37525$40cba7c7$22582@NAXS.COM>,
> > "Jonathan N. Little" <lws4art@central.net> wrote:
> >
> >> dorayme wrote:
> >>
> >>> Whether you use an ordered list or a table, you are conveying more or
> >>> less the same thing.
> >>
> >> No not really. A list is a list, with a singular "linear" relationship:
> >> start a 1, then to 2 then to 3...
> >>
> >
> > Not really. The relationship between the number of an ordered list item
> > and the list item itself is one relationship you miss considering.
>
> I would argue that the ordinal numbers is a list are not at all the same
> as the data within a table. It is not really the "data" makes little
> difference if
>
> 1. fee
> 2. fie
> 3. foe
> 4. fum
>
> A) fee
> B) fie
> C) foe
> D) fum
>
> or implied:
>
> * fee
> * fie
> * foe
> * fum
>
> Where as the first column of a table's data is relevant and the
> relationship by row and column is significant.
>
> fin | fish | water
> foot | dog | land
> wing | bird | air
>
> With or without ordinal numbers a tabular data within has a significance
> with respect to row column position. It is that organizational
> relationship that differentiates it from a list.

OK, now, Jonathan where were we? O yes, you think the number in an
ordered list can never be the same as data in a column in a table? And
you have an argument. Your argument begins with a few particularly
distracting ungrammatical sentences and others later. I am having
trouble understanding you. I have spent 15 minutes thinking of
charitable interpretations and come up with only obviously acceptable
and uncontroversial things that I start with myself.

Perhaps we can take things slowly.

Did you have any difficulty with my

1. "An ordered list has the major characteristic as part of its meaning
that the order in which the list items appear is crucial to
understanding the meaning. This understanding can be assisted by
adjacent numbers." ?

or

2. "let us assume that the paradigm is a bread making algorithm where
the numbers are not mere labels. They are both an aid to the reader to
keep track of the order and a crucial indicator that it is an ordered
rather than an unordered list. An ordered list must be read in a certain
way." ?

or, crucially and what you seem to simply miss in your above "argument":

3. "A column of bread making instructions could be represented in a
table, the left column having the numbers, the right showing the
procedure at the corresponding number. It is a tabular affair at heart.
The numbers mean something as can be seen by *imagining* column
headings, the left column might be "Order" and the right col heading
might be "Do this"." ?

I know you had difficulty with my

4. "Whether you use an ordered list or a table, you are conveying more
or less the same thing. That is what I meant by semantic equivalence." ?

I ask because none of these detailed sentences did *you* take up in any
shape or form. You did not question any of the sentences in particular
so I am fighting here to understand what difficulty you or anyone is
having with my oft stated view that an ordered list is in all essentials
a two col table of a special type.

It is particularly frustrating to me that you do not take up my 3. which
summarises the crucial idea. It pinpoints the type of table that is a
semantic equivalent. Not *any* table will do. An ordered list showing a
cooking algorithm is not going to be matched by any old table. A
particular ordered list has its counterpart table with particular
characteristics.

For me, meaning is information. I have no idea what it is for you. If I
use an ordered list to tell someone how to get the head off a Triumph
Trophy and get the valves out and grind the seats, I expect that they
understand that it is an ordered list and not an unordered one. If I put
in the numbers (by, say, leaving list-style-type as default) I expect
the reader to read the numbers in a particular way.

I expect them to see "1" and relate it to the text on the right of it.
And for the number "2" etc. If I did this in a two col table I would
expect *exactly* the same thing.

In a table I would even be able to help the simpler type of home
mechanic to read it right. I could put in a col heading that makes it
clear that the order is represented by the numbers below. An ordered
list in itself has no such provisions as represented in a browser. One
can, of course, make it clear in some prelimininary text.

If a sighted person sees an ordered list on a website, it might, unknown
to him, be coded by ol or by a two col table. The sighted user would be
none the wiser by simple reading. Imagine two identical sets of
instructions, one on one webpage coded ol, the other on another page
coded table. What difficulty do you have or does anyone have with the
idea that the objects (as seen by website users) are equivalent in
meaning? Do you at least understand this semantic equivalence?

You can look at the source and say "Ah, this is a table" or "This is an
ordered list". But from the point of view of the reader, it is a piece
of text that means something and it means exactly the same thing whether
it be a 2 col table or an ol behind the scenes.

Lets move on to another aspect of semantic equivalence now. A blind man
is being read an algorithm. "1" the voice says, "Remove the fuel tank",
"2", the voice continues, "Clean top of engine with degreaser" etc.

But another blind man on another website has the table version and he is
read very similar instructions. He understands via the left column
*heading* that this is the order, and the instruction is paired to the
right col on the same row.

I am not arguing for the moment which is best or simpler or which is
more convenient for either author or listener or reader. I am saying
that when all is said and done, the two have understood the information
conveyed, they have understood pretty well the same thing. An algorithm
of how to strip a head and grind the valve seats in. These are the
things that make the alternative constructions semantically equivalent.
Information conveyed and received. One person is not in possession of
some secret meaning that the other is not in possession of.

You might have some sort of ghost idea of meaning. I don't. I am a
practical person and have the idea of practical meaning. Words and
constructions have a meaning according to how they are used and
received. And I am saying to you and you are dismissing or snipping or
oddly replying without taking up my words.

I have no idea at all why this is so.

I will take up the greater flexibility question you put later, I better
stop!

--
dorayme

On 2008-08-26, dorayme <doraymeRidThis@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
[...]
> Quite often, in my experience, if an idea is so coldly received, it is
> because it is communicated in a form that makes it sound simply false or
> crazy, there being no handle for the receiver to intelligently discuss
> it. Hence your first dismissive response where you repeated so
> innocently that a list was a list, one thing after another and a table
> was a table, things relating blah blah. I do not blame you.
[...]

I think it's sort of OK to call an ordered list a kind of table. But
it's only possible to judge it in the very dim light available.

A table is really a visual thing as everyone knows. Then people started
saying you can only use an HTML table for abstract "tabular data". But
we can only imagine what "tabular data" really is.

People have their own definitions but none of them are authoritative.

Really it comes down to choosing the element that fits best out of the
choice available.

Since there is an OL element that's usually going to be a better choice
for an ordered list than a TABLE.

And if you do use a TABLE instead because it's easier to style it the
way you want you could be accused of using tables for presentation,
which is the dreaded thing everyone is trying to avoid.

It's much easier to answer the practical questions "why are you using a
table?" and "why aren't you using an OL?" than "is your data tabular?".

Your argument that the numbers are like a corresponding column so that
we can look up the third thing to do on the list etc. does work but how
is that different from the argument that a linter is a kind of
validator?

In article <slrngba80l.hvj.spamspam@bowser.marioworld>,
Ben C <spamspam@spam.eggs> wrote:

> On 2008-08-26, dorayme <doraymeRidThis@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
> [...]
> > Quite often, in my experience, if an idea is so coldly received, it is
> > because it is communicated in a form that makes it sound simply false or
> > crazy, there being no handle for the receiver to intelligently discuss
> > it. Hence your first dismissive response where you repeated so
> > innocently that a list was a list, one thing after another and a table
> > was a table, things relating blah blah. I do not blame you.
> [...]
>
> I think it's sort of OK to call an ordered list a kind of table. But
> it's only possible to judge it in the very dim light available.
>

What to call things is one thing. What things are is something else. The
two are related sometimes by trying one's best to fit the first to the
second. I am wondering if you think I am saying anything else but that
it is ok in the special sense that I have outlined at length a few times
now? In particular that it is ok to use a table instead of an ordered
list if it is at all more convenient in a context and that it is ok not
for the reason that it is ok to be a bit naughty or to cut corners but
for the reason there is nothing here that is naughty at all, there is no
corner, there is nothing that is not impeccably ok.

Perhaps this idea is simply unable to be communicated! Perhaps I am
simply wrong?

The relation between a number and a list item has a certain practical
significance and meaning. So does the relation between some types of
cells in tables that I have described at length as relevant in this
context.

If one has an ordered list and is having the slightest difficulty
styling it the way one wants, there is no argument on this earth that
anyone has ever come up with that i know about to show that it is
*wrong* to do so when one considers that the relation between the
ordering number and the text is preserved in a table as I have explained
at length.

> A table is really a visual thing as everyone knows. Then people started
> saying you can only use an HTML table for abstract "tabular data". But
> we can only imagine what "tabular data" really is.
>
> People have their own definitions but none of them are authoritative.
>
> Really it comes down to choosing the element that fits best out of the
> choice available.
>
I have not meant to give a different impression.

> Since there is an OL element that's usually going to be a better choice
> for an ordered list than a TABLE.

I have never denied this in any shape or form. I just have not been
giving this bit of the church teachings. I practice this church teaching
myself. I also practice with *a clear conscience* a substitution of a
table where I am having any technical difficulties with styling. I have
been trying to convey to you why one's conscience can be clear as
against the tut tut ers on ordered list vs 2 col tables.
>
> And if you do use a TABLE instead because it's easier to style it the
> way you want you could be accused of using tables for presentation,
> which is the dreaded thing everyone is trying to avoid.
>

I am trying to expose the idea that there is something of huge substance
behind such an accusation in special limited situations.

> It's much easier to answer the practical questions "why are you using a
> table?" and "why aren't you using an OL?" than "is your data tabular?".
>

> Your argument that the numbers are like a corresponding column so that
> we can look up the third thing to do on the list etc. does work but how
> is that different from the argument that a linter is a kind of
> validator?

You have lost me completely on this last? Are you implying that the
relation between the number in an ordered list and the list item is of a
special kind, let us call it r and that r is so well known in this and
other html/css technical groups and so well defined that anyone well
educated in these groups knows, I repeat, simply knows, that the
relation between a number in a table column headed "The order in which
to do this algorithm" and the action to be taken at that step in the
next column at the corresponding row, call this relation q is such that
r and q are quite different in theory and in practice?

What is next, Ben? Am I to be compared for my view that they look for
all the world to be essentially the same relation with peddling some
shonky product?

--
dorayme

dorayme wrote:

> The relation between a number and a list item has a certain practical
> significance and meaning. So does the relation between some types of
> cells in tables that I have described at length as relevant in this
> context.

It may and it may not. Could be significant in the order of things like
procedural steps:

1. Untie laces
2. Pull off shoe
3. Pull off sock
4. Bare foot.

But may be just arbitrary,

Needed from store:

1. eggs
2. milk
3. bread
4. apples

With tables and tabula data the order may not be important but the row
to column interrelationship is important:

1 | nose
2 | ears
2 | feet
8 | fingers
10 | toes

the order is not so significant, this would have the same meaning:

2 | feet
8 | fingers
10 | toes
1 | nose
2 | ears

but change the row to column interrelationship and you will have problems:

1 | feet
2 | fingers
2 | toes
8 | nose
10 | ears

or a freak of nature.



--
Take care,

Jonathan
-------------------
LITTLE WORKS STUDIO
http://www.LittleWorksStudio.com

dorayme wrote:
> In article <a99be$48b3f723$40cba7c7$6378@NAXS.COM>,
> "Jonathan N. Little" <lws4art@central.net> wrote:
>
>> dorayme wrote:
>>> In article <ba9a0$48b37525$40cba7c7$22582@NAXS.COM>,
>>> "Jonathan N. Little" <lws4art@central.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> dorayme wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Whether you use an ordered list or a table, you are conveying more or
>>>>> less the same thing.
>>>> No not really. A list is a list, with a singular "linear" relationship:
>>>> start a 1, then to 2 then to 3...
>>>>
>>> Not really. The relationship between the number of an ordered list item
>>> and the list item itself is one relationship you miss considering.
>> I would argue that the ordinal numbers is a list are not at all the same
>> as the data within a table. It is not really the "data" makes little
>> difference if
>>
>> 1. fee
>> 2. fie
>> 3. foe
>> 4. fum
>>
>> A) fee
>> B) fie
>> C) foe
>> D) fum
>>
>> or implied:
>>
>> * fee
>> * fie
>> * foe
>> * fum
>>
>> Where as the first column of a table's data is relevant and the
>> relationship by row and column is significant.
>>
>> fin | fish | water
>> foot | dog | land
>> wing | bird | air
>>
>> With or without ordinal numbers a tabular data within has a significance
>> with respect to row column position. It is that organizational
>> relationship that differentiates it from a list.
>
> OK, now, Jonathan where were we? O yes, you think the number in an
> ordered list can never be the same as data in a column in a table? And
> you have an argument. Your argument begins with a few particularly
> distracting ungrammatical sentences and others later. I am having
> trouble understanding you. I have spent 15 minutes thinking of
> charitable interpretations and come up with only obviously acceptable
> and uncontroversial things that I start with myself.

Sorry should get someone else to proof my messages before posting.
Numbers in a list are only significant if they represent procedural
step, but that may not aways be the case. See my other reply...



--
Take care,

Jonathan
-------------------
LITTLE WORKS STUDIO
http://www.LittleWorksStudio.com