Gallery table or not table ;)

[whisher]

Hi.
I'm wondering if it makes sense
build a layout like this (a simple gallery)
http://www.gallarific.com/demo/index.php
without table.
If the reply is yes could give me a little
example of the mark up?


Thanks in advance.

Bye.

[whisher]

For instance you can think to http://getvanilla.com/
the forum don't use table.
I see a good choice a definion list http://reference.sitepoint.com/html/dd .........

[Stomme poes]

Well, the middle part looks like a table-- kinda forum-y.
*edit the advantage of a table for the upper/main part of the page is you can semantically make everyone in the row, but also everyone in the column related (using scope or headers attributes, in a real table).

The bottom part, most viewed photos, should prolly either be a list or just a sequence of floated images. Wrapping each image+caption in a div (or something that made sense) and giving them all the same min-height and width (this depends on how different each images' dimensions could be) and floated can giev you exactly the same look.

The floats will bunch up weird if the divs don't all have the same height or min-height. If the heights are radically different between photos then a display: table setup might work better.

A very simplified setup. Somewhere I have an actual gallery setup somewhere.

You can also try Gary's display: inline-block setup. http://gtwebdev.com/workshop/layout/...ck-gallery.php

*edit a definition list should be reserved for key-value pairs. So if you had
photographer
photo

or

title
photo

then it could maybe make sense to use one.

[C. Ankerstjerne]

I agree on the definition list, since I consider it the most semantic and most extensible, for example:

<dl class="images">
  <dt><img src="..." width="..." height="..." alt="">
    <dd class="caption">...
    <dd class="author"><cite>...</cite>
    <dd class="date">0000-00-00
</dl>

[whisher]

Thanks to everybody