Magnus wrote:
"No parameters can be added to |- tags; not that I ever saw a table on wikipedia which uses that!"
Erik Zachte wrote:
If you search the en: cur sql dump file for '<tr ' you will find hundreds of examples;
Magnus wrote:
Yes, but now substract those that are used in "standard" tables like
the
elements tables; we want to cover these by CSS anyway, right? Now, substract those that can be easily done just as well by <td ...>
Of the remaining ones (if any), which are absolutely necessary
(meaning,
don't serve some doubtful decorative purpose;-) ?
I rather specify any option only once than on each cell.
As for doubtful decorative purpose: not quite NPOV ;) Colour helps to bring order to complex tables, CSS classes might do the trick, but will that be easier to apply than a <tr bgcolor=blue> ? (one needs to look up css definitions somewhere)
----
Erik Zachte wrote:
|_ is too similar to |- and therefore hard to detect when editing the source, easy to confuse and mistype.
Magnus wrote:
I am open to suggestions! Magnus
anything goes that is not confusing |= may be mistaken by unitiated as meaning <th> what about |+, |@ or |# ?
Erik Zachte
Erik Zachte wrote:
Of the remaining ones (if any), which are absolutely necessary
(meaning,
don't serve some doubtful decorative purpose;-) ?
I rather specify any option only once than on each cell.
As for doubtful decorative purpose: not quite NPOV ;) Colour helps to bring order to complex tables, CSS classes might do the trick, but will that be easier to apply than a <tr bgcolor=blue> ? (one needs to look up css definitions somewhere)
OK, so is there an example for * a row with several cells (say, more than 2) * that has some properties in common (e.g., background) * which can't be defined in the <table> / {| statement * in a table that is not one of a default type (countries, elements etc.) ?
I don't want CSS for *all* tables, just for the ones that occur over and again. Advantage: less to type, easier for newbies, settings can be changed with a central "switch" if desired.
Also, we were about to give <th> sone nice default background via CSS, right? That'll take care of many "colored row" problems, IMHO.
Don't get me wrong, it'll take ~5-10min to implement the <tr> thingy (probably less than writing all these mails;-) but what's the point?
|_ is too similar to |- and therefore hard to detect when editing the source, easy to confuse and mistype.
I am open to suggestions!
anything goes that is not confusing |= may be mistaken by unitiated as meaning <th> what about |+, |@ or |# ?
|# could be confused with the numbering wiki markup. |@ doesn't strike me as intuitive.
|+ is something I could well live with! :-)
Magnus
On Tue, 16 Sep 2003 12:35:13 +0200, Magnus Manske magnus.manske@web.de gave utterance to the following:
Erik Zachte wrote:
Of the remaining ones (if any), which are absolutely necessary
(meaning,
don't serve some doubtful decorative purpose;-) ?
I rather specify any option only once than on each cell. As for doubtful decorative purpose: not quite NPOV ;) Colour helps to bring order to complex tables, CSS classes might do the trick, but will that be easier to apply than a <tr bgcolor=blue> ? (one needs to look up css definitions somewhere)
OK, so is there an example for
- a row with several cells (say, more than 2)
- that has some properties in common (e.g., background)
- which can't be defined in the <table> / {| statement
- in a table that is not one of a default type (countries, elements etc.)
?
Which raises the question of supporting <COL> elements. I don't think <COLGROUP> is particularly useful, but <COL> is, and is fairly well supported.
On Tue, 16 Sep 2003 14:11:23 +0200, Magnus Manske magnus.manske@web.de gave utterance to the following:
Richard Grevers wrote:
Which raises the question of supporting <COL> elements. I don't think
<COLGROUP> is particularly useful, but <COL> is, and is fairly well supported.
Wasn't our original intention to *simplify* table markup? ;-)
There are cases where <COL> can considerably simplify table markup, e.g. <col class="foo"> rather than having to add class="foo" to every td in a column. Also, the width="*" mechanism is an exellent means of overcoming the vagaries when the various permitted width allocation algorithms are allowed to run wild.
Richard Grevers wrote:
There are cases where <COL> can considerably simplify table markup, e.g.
<col class="foo"> rather than having to add class="foo" to every td in a column. Also, the width="*" mechanism is an exellent means of overcoming the vagaries when the various permitted width allocation algorithms are allowed to run wild.
With article numers closing on 160000 and a total of ~300000 pages, there's *not a single one* with "<col " in the text.
Frankly, I'm not willing to go through a complete rewrite of the table markup implementation to support a feature that is not even used.
Magnus
wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org