Is the end of HTML as we know it?

[Bergamot]

All depends on what newsgroup archives you bother to read, you know?

Hmmm... that just tells me you did little or no research on your own.

And I presume you certainly are?

That isn't relevant, but based on what I've seen of your work, then I'm
a lot farther along than you. But instead of doing some learning on your
own to improve your own understanding, you decide to waste people's time
with the tired 'tables vs css' drivel.

 

[Ben C]

Tabular data cannot be displayed with CSS?

Of course it can, and the default styles for <table>, <tr>, <td> etc.
will usually give you a good layout for your tabular data.

You can also use CSS to do tabular layouts of non-tabular data.

You can separate layout from content to your heart's content, and layout
your elements with display: table, display: table-row, display:
table-cell, etc., if you require table-layout behaviour, whether the
content is tabular or not.

It just isn't supported in the current version of IE. That's a
completely different issue though.

 

[1001 Webs]

Hmmm... that just tells me you did little or no research on your own.


That isn't relevant, but based on what I've seen of your work, then I'm
a lot farther along than you. But instead of doing some learning on your
own to improve your own understanding, you decide to waste people's time
with the tired 'tables vs css' drivel.

The poster just above you would surely disagree about the absoluteness
of that statement.
Which speaks a lot of both your ability to screen Newsgroups and to
understand the needs of today's web authoring.
I have done some learning on my own and what I learned is that is not
a unified criteria on this issue because of different browsers display
pages in different manners.
And I learned too that it does NOT happen when using tables.
In that sense I am long way before you.
Look around just a little and you'll find out for yourself. It's worth
the effort, believe me.

P.D.
Where the heck did my answer to:
"I disagree with anyone who agrees with any absolute statement. "
replied with:
"then you'll disagree with absolute positioning"
go?

 

[Adrienne Boswell]

See if you feel that way after editing a site with a half dozen nested
tables with row and column spans...

Yes, without going into the HTML, and having the server write a lot of
javascript href="javascript('somethingbad')"

I inherited that nightmare a few years ago, all gone now.

 

[Ben C]

Let me rephrase it:
Is the Internet world ready to adapt CSS in all its glory and get rid
of tables and all that deprecated stuff?
... or something like that ...

Tables are part of CSS. The real question is: is IE ready to adopt CSS
in all its glory by supporting more of it?

 

[Bone Ur]

Well bust mah britches and call me cheeky, on Sat, 03 Nov 2007 21:18:32
GMT 1001 Webs scribed:

Then you have to disagree with absolute positioning as well.

See, there's the conundrum. Normally, yes, I would likely disagree, but
since I _have_ to disagree, I just can't agree with that, either. Even
agreeing to disagree leaves a sour taste in my mouth so I think I'll just
go off and play Australian.

No point.
It was a question, a doubt.
Let me rephrase it:
Is the Internet world ready to adapt CSS in all its glory and get rid
of tables and all that deprecated stuff?
... or something like that ...

It depends on how pedantic you are. But a word to the wise: many people
seem to "adapt" (-to or "adopt") much of the w3c's labyrinthine advices
apparently because they are official and/or sound so neat, so my guess
would be "Yeah, the 'Day of the Nerds' is upon us."

 

[Red E. Kilowatt]

That's not true. CSS is simple and more powerfull then layout tables.

Simple for you, maybe. I find CSS incomprehensible for anything beyond
specifying fonts and backgrounds, like trying to position boxes within
an overall layout.

And honestly, I don't want to learn, because as far as I'm concerned
tables work fine. Granted, improving the text to mark-up ratio on my
sites would probably help their search engine ranking slightly, but I'd
rather send my time figuring out new ways to make money.

 

[Jerry Stuckle]

True, but CSS != fluid design

That's not the point. CSS CAN be fluid design. Tables cannot really be
fluid.

That is not true at all. While it may not look exactly the same on
100% of the visitors, you can design it to look the same on the
overwhelming majority of visitors. If it were not this way the
corporate world would be rushing to use fluid design. But they
aren't, they are using fixed width. Because that is what people want,
and that is what best suits the corporate world.

Read what I said. Then respond with some intelligence.

If it doesn't look "exactly the same on 100% of the visitors", it isn't
exactly the same, is it?

And the key to your statement is "I'd prefer...."

Not at all. Any *competent* webmaster would be able to do such.

I prefer fixed width. So why is what I prefer wrong, and what you
prefer right?

So do most graphic designers I know. And that's fine for a piece of
paper. But it's shows complete incompetence on the web, which is a
fluid layout.

It isn't. It is a preference. Neither of us is right or wrong.

It is a lack of competence on your part.

--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.
(e-mail address removed)
==================

 

[Jonathan N. Little]

P.D.
Where the heck did my answer to:
"I disagree with anyone who agrees with any absolute statement. "
replied with:
"then you'll disagree with absolute positioning"
go?

Just further down the tread. The shortcomings of *not* using a real
newsreader.

 

[Jonathan N. Little]

Tables are part of CSS. The real question is: is IE ready to adopt CSS
in all its glory by supporting more of it?

IE11.2 will finally adopt CSS2.1 recommendation, by current development
rate, oh in about 24 years from now.

 

[dorayme]

Tables cannot really be
fluid.

You have said this twice now but have not indicated what you
mean. A table of tabular data can be very fluid or it can be not
very fluid (because of poor design and the use of fixed widths
etc). So what does it mean to say "cannot be really fluid"?

 

[Jerry Stuckle]

You have said this twice now but have not indicated what you
mean. A table of tabular data can be very fluid or it can be not
very fluid (because of poor design and the use of fixed widths
etc). So what does it mean to say "cannot be really fluid"?

Let's see you wrap data in a table around a picture, for instance.

--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.
(e-mail address removed)
==================

 

[Jim Moe]

Every respected Web-authoring Guru says that.
This is the era of table-less design, CSS code, XHTML compliant
websites.
Separate layout from content.

Do you agree with that?
I don't.

Troll.

 

[Chaddy2222]

While I agree with you that CSS adequately provides for layout, your
example not impressive.

On my browsers (galeon, iceweasel), there were anamolies. The left
panel is shifted down about 0.5em from the right panel. That is, there
is a yellow space between it and the "header", which the right panel
lacks. As a result, not only is there a perhaps undesired yellow space
below the left panel and the footer that is wider than that below the
right panel.

That's due to the different colour on the body showing through.

Apparently it is the result of using the KompoZer utility, and it does
not speak much for it. The stylesheet looks confused (the navbar div
seems to be within the header div). As a template, should not the
margins be omitted, or at least set ot defaults?

It was a template I developed for my own sites.
http://freewebdesign.awardspace.biz now is useing it.
It should look a lot better as I changed a lot of things in the CSS.

 

[Harlan Messinger]

W3 recommends the use of CSS

You are misunderstanding this. W3 recommends the use of CSS for
*presentation*. Without content marked up with HTML *to apply the CSS
to*, there is no web page.

 

[1001 Webs]

You are misunderstanding this. W3 recommends the use of CSS for
*presentation*. Without content marked up with HTML *to apply the CSS
to*, there is no web page.

W3 recommends the use of CSS for *presentation*
and XHTML for content,
Please, correct me if i'm wrong.

 

[Lars Eighner]

In our last episode, <[email protected]>,
the lovely and talented 1001 Webs broadcast on
comp.infosystems.www.authoring.html:

W3 recommends the use of CSS for *presentation*
and XHTML for content,
Please, correct me if i'm wrong.

You're wrong. That XHTML is more recent does not mean that it is more
highly recommended than HTML 4.01.

It is true enough that it looks like everything is heading toward XML, but
it is pretty much possible to start marking things up with an eye to that
end in HTML, and much more important to move to strict.

 

[Jonathan N. Little]

In our last episode, <[email protected]>,
the lovely and talented 1001 Webs broadcast on
comp.infosystems.www.authoring.html:


You're wrong. That XHTML is more recent does not mean that it is more
highly recommended than HTML 4.01.

Agree, also I would add XHTML looked like a the recommended path but
Microsoft "dropped anchor" on that course.

 

[Jonathan N. Little]

Troll.

Don't see the bridge but sure smells of one.

 

[1001 Webs]

In our last episode, <[email protected]>,
the lovely and talented 1001 Webs broadcast on
comp.infosystems.www.authoring.html:


You're wrong. That XHTML is more recent does not mean that it is more
highly recommended than HTML 4.01.

Tutorial: Character sets & encodings in XHTML, HTML and CSS

Intended audience: HTML/XHTML and CSS content authors.
This material is applicable whether you create documents in an editor,
or via scripting.

Assumptions & recommendations in this section

*In the rest of this tutorial we will assume that you are serving
pages to be rendered in standards mode by relatively up-to-date user
agents.
* We recommend the use of XHTML wherever possible; and if you
serve XHTML as text/html we assume that you are conforming to the
compatibility guidelines in Appendix C of the XHTML 1.0 specification.
* We recognize that XHTML served as XML is still not widely
supported, and that therefore many XHTML 1.0 pages will be served as
text/html.
* We assume that, because of its tendency to cause Internet
Explorer 6 to render in quirks mode, some people prefer not to use the
XML declaration for XHTML served as text/html.
* XHTML served as XML should be served as application/xhtml+xml.

http://www.w3.org/International/tutorials/tutorial-char-enc/