[thelist] Which is more Semantically Correct(tm) ??

[Mike Hopkins]

Hope this isn't way off base....
I copied Maximillion's source code for the course listings
and reduced them
to minimum content. Then I applied what I understand as the
structure of a
(Access) database -- connection, recordset, records,
fields -- to the markup.
Then Iadded an additional layer to the last entry, and
additional fields
to show how linked tables might work. "Key" was changed to
"item" to
avoid confusion.

Using DL, DT & DD fits well with this database structure,
with the
exception of the HEADER which is probably not a look-up
item,
is it?  Here's the code:

{I LEFT OFF THE FINAL BLOCK OF CLOSING TAGS}

<p>Your Courses.</p>

<dl>  **CONNECTION

  <dt>  **HEADER
     <a href="whatever">First</a> HEADER FIELD
  </dt>

    <dd>  **TABLE
      <dl>  **RECORDSET
        <dt>item</dt><dd>value</dd>  **RECORD W/ FIELDS
        <dt>item</dt><dd>value</dd>  **RECORD W/ FIELDS
        <dt>item</dt>

          <dd>
             <dL>**LINKED RECORDSET
                 <dt>item</dt><dd>information</dd>  **RECORD
W/ FIELDS

<dd>information</dd>  **MORE FIELDS
          </dd>  **RECORD W/ FIELDS AND LINKED RECORDS
      ....


I find it somehow gratifying that a database will fit into
HTML/CSS with simple, straight forward non-tabular
markup. I'm sure other markup would work as well,
but I like this as it should be very easy to script, output
and style.

The vertical relationship now becomes NEXT, but I don't
think
that necessarily forces a table.

Or maybe I'm wrong and lists ARE tables ????


Mike Hopkins
ironmike |AT| inav.net


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Maximillian Schwanekamp"
<anaxamaxan at neptunewebworks.com>

> I posted this question to the Webdesign-L list as well,
and did get what I
> felt was a persuasive answer from Alberto Perez.  A
snippet:
> >In that table there are two groups of data, positions and
names, and that
> >data has relationships both in horizontal and in vertical
directions: As a
> >position-name pairs and as lists of position and names.
But in your case I
> >can't think of a title for the two columns apart from
"keys" and "values"
> >of something similar, since the data doesn't have a clear
"vertical"
> >relationship.
>
> The operative principal being that in tabular data, there
should be clear
> relationships both in the rows and in the columns.  In
this case, I had sets
> of keys and values which were effectively attributes of a
single item, i.e.
> a horizontal relationship but not a vertical one (beyond
the most tenuous).
> By this reasoning using a table would be the wrong choice.
UL/OL do not
> have the key-value relationship either (without nesting
anyway), so DL it
> is.  Further, the DL spec allows multiple DTs and/or
multiple DDs, allowing
> for key variants or multiple values.  A very handy
element!  The W3 spec[1]
> makes the suggestion of broader use than just strict
term-definition use:
> "Another application of DL, for example, is for marking up
dialogues, with
> each DT naming a speaker, and each DD containing his or
her words."  To me
> this suggests something close to key-value.
>
> In the end, I went with the structure that Sarah
suggested.  I think I
> already posted a URI yesterday but here it is again[2]
since some of my
> posts seem be failing to reach the list.
>
> [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/html401/struct/lists.html#edef-DL
> [2] http://neptunewebworks.com/evolt/cards2/
>
> Maximillian Von Schwanekamp
> Dynamic Websites and E-Commerce
> www.NeptuneWebworks.com
> voice: 541-302-1438
> fax: 208-730-6504
>
>
>
> -- 
> * * Please support the community that supports you.  * *
> http://evolt.org/help_support_evolt/
>
> For unsubscribe and other options, including the Tip
Harvester
> and archives of thelist go to: http://lists.evolt.org
> Workers of the Web, evolt !