Meanwhile, back at the ranch...
I have been thinking about the larger question of this thread. I have been thinking of (1) what a table really is and why it was, is used? I have also been questioning (2) what is really happening with tabulated data? Now, I'm no great thinker, but (at least for me) this exercise has helped me to reduce the subject to a finer granularity and has allowed me a more objective consideration. Read on.
(1) The first thought I had was a table is convenient. It stores/presents related data in a matrix that is both familiar and efficient. I think this is because its function is reinforced by its form. Even the visual framework allows us to quickly navigate the data in a well-seasoned procedure. Our eyes lead our minds around the grid for whatever purpose. Tables are as comfy as our favorite chair, but mainly for graphically-oriented people which appears to be the vast majority of humankind. On the other hand, the familiar arrangement of tables may turn out to be a prison for textually-oriented folk. They are locked behind the bars of the grid lines without freedom of their minds to work in their behalf. The table, like a movie inexorably leads us wherever the film maker wants us to go. Perhaps tables imprisons all of us? This leads me to the next bullet.
(2) In consideration of the dynamics of tables and the interactions of the user, the table is a collection of relationships. But, it does not necessarily follow that all those relationships *must* be kept in proximity.
[Note: to the Reader: I must admit that at this point I get kind of fuzzy trying quantify these dynamics, but I will a least try to communicate my thoughts. Please don't ridicule me if I can't make things coherent. At this juncture I am only working through the theory of my cogitations.]
As I looked at a table I saw separate entities within the matrix (no pun intended). Associations specific to various entities tried to emerge, but was never really able to overcome the gravitational forces of the table. However, this does not mean those associations could not live outside the table, but this did provoke a question of whether the different associations "needed" each other to remain coherent? Is it possible the groups of associations did not necessarily require the table, but only needed a different proximal relationship to maintain their vitality?
Well, that's as far as I got this go-around. Keep in mind, I am trying to communicate a "picture" which briefly surfaced and returned to the depths without revealing its true and comprehensive form. I can kind of "see" what I am trying to say, but I can't put into words or concrete application just yet. I hope you all do not think me mad? 
-CodeTRUCKER
Great higher level comment! My eleven cents:
1. "What a table really is and why it was, is used?" - To me, a table is "very flat and wide data that desperately needs a 2x2 correlation to everything all the time".
So supposing for example in my tax prep job, I'd want a table of:
Last name, First Name, Last 4 of the social security number, full social security number, and client phone number ...
and then IRS acceptance status plus refund-check status.
That kind of data is a chart against which at any time a client calls in and "wants to know the last two items as fast as possible". Client calls, they give you any amount of the first five items, and you feed back the last two.
That's what a chart does. 2x2, very tall and very wide, but with a little care, *very flat*.
2. Trees
However, a whole lot of my mindset runs to very *deeply nested* data that emphasizes structure of the data.
Recreation
DonationCoder
CodeTrucker
MyInfo Investigation
Necessary Features
1 (Feature1)
Progress1
Progress 1a
Progress 1b
Solution1
2 (Feature2)
Progress2
Progress 2a
Progress 2b
Solution2
Slashdot
Aphelion
Chessbase
Article1
Notes1
Notes2
Article2
Notes1
Notes2
--------------------------------------------
And so on.
So in that broad case a table is useless because the structure rules it all, and then the rest starts to get freeform.
Recent Posts
)
.