Webmaster Forum / HTML, CSS, Scripts / CSS / August 2008

It does.

Certainly my Safari (Under Windows). Not IE8 beta though.

Maybe not Internet Explorer Mobile Browser either, but most of the
rest.

[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>

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!