God I miss tables-help needed!

[William Tasso]

Fleeing from the madness of the "a2i network" jungle
axlq <[email protected]> stumbled into
news:alt.html,alt.www.webmaster,comp.infosystems.www.authoring.stylesheets
and said:

[greetings from AWW - please feel free to suggest f/ups]

You're right, that's nice. They don't take the hard-line religious
viewpoint that all layout MUST be done in CSS. They do agree that
tables have uses in layout.

each to their own.

I do disagree with their recommendation to eliminate <b> and replace
it with <strong> -- why waste the extra bytes?

hrmm - <strong> is not a replacement for <b>

<b> has no place in the modern web, it is purely a styling detail and as
such deserves to be discarded in favour of a CSS suggestion.

<strong> has an altogether different significance - which may (or may not)
include presenting text in a bold style.

 

[Alan J. Flavell]

<[email protected]> stumbled into
news:alt.html,alt.www.webmaster,comp.infosystems.www.authoring.stylesheets
and said:


hrmm - <strong> is not a replacement for <b>

<strong>Agreed</>. If <b> is correctly used, it *cannot* mean
<strong>; in fact it can mean many different things for which bold
font is conventionally used, *excepting* those for which HTML provides

<b> has no place in the modern web, it is purely a styling detail

Well, I think that's arguable.

Some usages of bold are firmly entrenched in typography (for example,
the volume number in a journal citation), and I see no real harm (so
long as HTML has no other markup for the purpose) in using <b> for
those uses.

Or rather, <b class="something">, where the class at least has some
human meaning, in the absence of any suitably-defined HTML markup.

Similarly for, say, the scientific name of a species, where an italic

and as such deserves to be discarded in favour of a CSS suggestion.

By all means associate the markup (b.something, i.species etc) with
presentation proposals.

But I still think that markups like <b class="volume">,
<i class="species">, in situations where the typography is
sufficiently entrenched, have a slight edge over the unspecific

<strong> has an altogether different significance - which may (or
may not) include presenting text in a bold style.

Certainly agree with that.

best regards

 

[dorayme]

In general, for a CSS layout, my "best practices" are as follows:

Your very own "best practice" eh? Now how is that for an
internalisation of a communal concept?

 

[Richard]

Thanks, Jeff. I checked out you newtnotes. That's a nice idea. I
maintain a huge note directory, but I should organize as a web site.
Maybe sometime ...

Regards,
Richard

 

[Richard]

I appreciate that you took my comment as intended. Good luck with your
learning!

Thanks, Tony.

I amazed at how much conversation my humble question precipitated.
Long live the Web!

Regards,
Richard

 

[Ed Jay]

Richard scribed:

learning!

Thanks, Tony.

I amazed at how much conversation my humble question precipitated.
Long live the Web!

By way of clarification only, this isn't the "Web." This is "Usenet."

 

[Nik Coughlin]

I should probably stop talking to myself, then

Oh man, please make the little voices stop

 

[JDS]

Your very own "best practice" eh? Now how is that for an
internalisation of a communal concept?

wha?

 

[JDS]

Your very own "best practice" eh?

Maybe I should've said "my 'suggested method'"

 

[JDS]

Thanks, Jeff. I checked out you newtnotes. That's a nice idea. I
maintain a huge note directory, but I should organize as a web site.
Maybe sometime ...

Download and install a Wiki on your web server (assuming you have a web
server!): Wikimedia, PHPWiki, or similar. Then any time you have a note,
put it there instead of in a Word doc or text file or sticky pad or on the
back of your hand. In time, you will have your website. The Wiki
installation part takes almost no effort.

 

[Neredbojias]

Oh man, please make the little voices stop

They have stopped. You are hearing only echoes.

 

[Tony]

Oh man, please make the little voices stop

They're only little to you

 

[Richard]

Hi Ed,

By way of clarification only, this isn't the "Web." This is "Usenet."

There'd be no UseNet without the Web

I've used newsgroups using a Newsreader that may not have been
available through UseNet (or didn't realize that it was).

Best wishes,
Richard

 

[Karl Groves]

Hi Ed,


There'd be no UseNet without the Web

What? Usenet's been around since the early 80s.


--
Karl Groves
http://karlcore.com
http://chevelle.karlcore.com

Accessibility Discussion List: http://smallerurl.com/?id=6p764du

 

[Richard]

Hi Karl,

Usenet's been around since the early 80s.

What protocol did Usenet in the 80's? Isn't "The Web" really a set of
interconnect computer offering multiple physical paths (in case a
disaster) and a protocol to transmit across that network ... all
envisioned by the U.S. DOD in the 60's or 70'd?

Regards,
Richard

 

[neilr]

Hi Karl,


What protocol did Usenet in the 80's? Isn't "The Web" really a set of
interconnect computer offering multiple physical paths (in case a
disaster) and a protocol to transmit across that network ... all
envisioned by the U.S. DOD in the 60's or 70'd?

isn't that the Internet?

 

[Karl Groves]

Hi Karl,


What protocol did Usenet in the 80's? Isn't "The Web" really a set of
interconnect computer offering multiple physical paths (in case a
disaster) and a protocol to transmit across that network ... all
envisioned by the U.S. DOD in the 60's or 70'd?

The "Worldwide Web" is *not* the Internet.
Please review - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Wide_Web

You are confusing the Internet (the interconnected network of networks)
with Tim Berners Lee's vision of the WWW. To us pedants, the terms are not
synonymous.


--
Karl Groves
http://karlcore.com
http://chevelle.karlcore.com

Accessibility Discussion List: http://smallerurl.com/?id=6p764du

 

[Mark Goodge]

Hi Karl,


What protocol did Usenet in the 80's?

UUCP and tapes, initially.

Isn't "The Web" really a set of
interconnect computer offering multiple physical paths (in case a
disaster) and a protocol to transmit across that network ... all
envisioned by the U.S. DOD in the 60's or 70'd?

No, that's the Internet as a whole. The web is the section of the
Internet used for interconnected documents transmitted via HTTP, with
a subset of the web being documents designed specifically for display
via the web and marked up with HTML.

Mark

 

[kchayka]

1) Start with a plain vanilla HTML 4.01 strict page which has absolutely
zero author-imposed layou or design characteristics. USE SEMANTICALLY
CORRECT HTML!!

Good advice there.

2) Give classes and/or Id's to every element.

Not so good advice there. Why bloat the markup with stuff you don't
really need?

Also, you can start to add a smattering of <DIV>s here and there to force
the layout how you want it.

Excusing the word "force", this is where well-placed divs can eliminate
or reduce the need for the excessive class assignments in your #2.
Grouping elements in a div wrapper can make styling those elements a
breeze, using primarily descendant selectors.

div.content h2 {rules for h2 in the content area}
div.navbar h2 {different rules for h2 in the navigation area}

2 different parts of the page, different styling, no class selector
require on the individual h2 elements. It won't eliminate the need for
special class selectors, but should get rid of most.

Piece of cake.

 

[Jonathan N. Little]

Hi Karl,


What protocol did Usenet in the 80's? Isn't "The Web" really a set of
interconnect computer offering multiple physical paths (in case a
disaster) and a protocol to transmit across that network ... all
envisioned by the U.S. DOD in the 60's or 70'd?

Usenet does not require a webserver, but a newsserver...more akin to
email then a webpage I believe. DejaVue and now Google just repackage
the content into a webpage for folks without newsserver access or those
who are unaware of such access.