I wasn't saying Mike's link was what to use
I didn't mean to imply that you did. I was simply agreeing, or something.
although I don't see the tough criticism either? (just some moans about browser support)
Perhaps not as tough as Jeremy Paxman (is he still alive? He was when I left the UK):
quote: Sorry guys, great proof of concept and all, but a calendar is a table with two axes, weeks and days. It’s all very well to bastardize the ordered list, but why would you when a table already does what you want with minimal fuss.
Especially the fuss regarding body * {display:inline;} (though why you didn’t choose ol.calendar * {display:inline;} escapes me) and having to include display:none on a script element (which the w3c validator doesn’t like in your example).
I have to say, the elasticity of the calendar intrigues me, and I only wonder whether the same thing is possible with a table (surely you can set a table’s width by ems).
Nice idea, but let’s leave a disclaimer to say that no sane person should implement this.
quote: I would agree with some of the other commenters that a table is indeed more semantically correct for styling calendars – particularly in a grid format where the two axis have semantic meaning. Using ROWSPAN, COLSPAN, THEAD and TH gives a lot of flexibility as well as semantic meaining.
Wow. I never imagined arguing FOR the use of tables, but I think it provides the most semantically rich relationships.
quote: Let’s not overdo Lists, okay? Tabels do make sense with Calendars…
But then there's always the bubble gum brigade:
quote: Oh, this is great dude!
For more sequential/timeline-based things, when the specific day/week are not the key identifier, using a list makes more sense, since it can be laid out both in grid format and regular 'unwrapped' format, and so on.
I did try to sell that idea to the client, but she wants a calendar (because everyone else has one) so she will have a calendar.bastard by name, bastard by nature |