"rf" I admit I made an error

Discussion in 'HTML' started by Richard, Nov 17, 2003.

  1. Richard

    Richard Guest

    You are correct that what I showed in the other thread as a two column
    layout was anything but.
    It should be as follows:

    div.one {width:50px; height:50px; float:left;}
    div.two {width:50px; height:50px;}

    <div class="one">hello</div>
    <div class="two">world</div>

    The difference between becoming rows or columns is the float attribute.
    The addition of another division below the second one results in a new row.
    If float was included in the second divison attributes, a third division
    would create a third column.

    With respect to the poster whose question started this argument, I still
    contend that divisons are an alternate method of displaying content
    regardless of it being tabular data or not.
    All browsers AFAIK, are required to handle tables. They are not required to
    handle CSS and divisions.
    IMNSHO, I feel it is user's discretion as to which to use for presentation.

    If we negate all the nasty no no's this group of so called experts insist
    upon NOT doing, what do we have to left to work with but standard, basic,
    html.
    I say bullshit. If the writer wishes it to be that way, then who are you to
    tell him otherwise?
    If someone wants to use javascript, why do you badmouth that person so much?
    Why don't you bitch and whine to sites like www.download.com? Ever seen
    their source code? Nothing but tables. Oh and they use javascript too.
    Oh and how about www.microsoft.com ? Again, all tables.

    So let's have you give Mr. Bill Gates highly paid experts a piece of your
    mind and tell them they're not allowed to use tables or javascript. And do
    be sure to refer them to your sources of information.

    Now where's all your fancy work to show us at huh?
    Richard, Nov 17, 2003
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. > IMNSHO, I feel it is user's discretion as to which to use for
    presentation.

    Interesting. I read an article on the web lately [or perhaps it was a
    discussion here] by a web designer who put it very well. The article made
    me realise that web design isn't for the designer to control. It's for the
    user to control. This is a very hard concept to grasp if you're used to
    having control as a designer - particularly in print and/or television.

    I've only started to get used to it myself.

    > If we negate all the nasty no no's this group of so called experts insist
    > upon NOT doing, what do we have to left to work with but standard, basic,
    > html.


    I agree, it can be very difficult to come up with engaging designs using
    simply HTML and CSS. It just takes a lot more experience and the will to
    learn and improve.

    > I say bullshit. If the writer wishes it to be that way, then who are you

    to
    > tell him otherwise?


    Refer to my first response.

    > Now where's all your fancy work to show us at huh?


    Actually, I like this site I did recently. It was a mock-up design for a
    company I'm starting with a friend.

    URL:http://144.132.34.224/stryde/

    It uses XHTML 1.1 Strict and CSS [yes, I know it's useless using XHTML now
    but I didn't know that at that time].

    I also did: URL:http://www.strategis.com.au/

    Which, admittedly, is using tables for layout. When I updated the site
    recently, I tried hard to come up with a CSS alternative that I
    unfortunately could not find. It's using a very old doctype but still looks
    professional and is still usable in almost all browsers (I think). The
    client said most people visiting their site would be using Internet
    Explorer. So if it's acceptable to them, then it's acceptable to me. I
    still made sure it worked in a lot of other browsers first, though.

    Nicko.
    e n | c k m a, Nov 17, 2003
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Richard

    rf Guest

    "Richard" <anonymous@127.000> wrote in message
    news:...
    > You are correct


    Of course :)

    > that what I showed in the other thread as a two column
    > layout was anything but.


    > It should be as follows:
    >
    > div.one {width:50px; height:50px; float:left;}
    > div.two {width:50px; height:50px;}
    >
    > <div class="one">hello</div>
    > <div class="two">world</div>


    Tables usually have borders around the cells. Where are the borders?

    > The difference between becoming rows or columns is the float attribute.
    > The addition of another division below the second one results in a new

    row.

    No it does not. Well, it does with your trivial content but any real "table"
    would have much more realistic content. Here is your "table" with some more
    content in each cell and with two 'rows' and with borders around the divs.

    http://users.bigpond.net.au/rf/test/talkingoutofarse2.html

    Hardly a "table" :)

    > If float was included in the second divison attributes, a third division
    > would create a third column.


    http://users.bigpond.net.au/rf/test/talkingoutofarse3.html

    > With respect to the poster whose question started this argument, I still
    > contend that divisons are an alternate method of displaying content
    > regardless of it being tabular data or not.


    No, they are not. div's are only an alternative to HTML tables if those divs
    are made into CSS tables, for which browser support is quite poor.

    If the content is tabular in shape then it should reside in a table.
    <simile>One uses a spannar to tighten a nut, not a hammer.</simile>

    > All browsers AFAIK, are required to handle tables. They are not required

    to
    > handle CSS and divisions.


    AFAIK and I *do* know: browsers are not *required* to handle anything other
    than what the author of that browser has decided to handle. Please cite a
    reference into the specifications where it is stated that browsers *must*
    handle tables.

    You will not be able to because the spec says that, in general, a browser
    *may* support the elements contained therein. Specifically, the spec states
    that, if a browser optionally *does not* support an element then the browser
    *must* ignore that element. Hardly "required to support" IMNSHO.

    > IMNSHO, I feel it is user's discretion as to which to use for

    presentation.

    IMNSHO I feel that the author should, no must use the correct tool to
    express the design.

    <snip rest of crap>

    Cheers
    Richard.
    rf, Nov 17, 2003
    #3
  4. "rf" <> wrote in message news:<YP_tb.14214$>...

    > <simile>One uses a spannar to tighten a nut, not a hammer.</simile>


    Isn't that at best a metaphor, and not a simile?

    --
    Hywel
    Hywel Jenkins, Nov 17, 2003
    #4
  5. Richard

    rf Guest

    "Hywel Jenkins" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > "rf" <> wrote in message

    news:<YP_tb.14214$>...
    >
    > > <simile>One uses a spannar to tighten a nut, not a hammer.</simile>

    >
    > Isn't that at best a metaphor, and not a simile?


    Perhaps.

    I did not want to leave myself open by saying <metaphor strength="the same
    as">. I chose <simile strength="like">.

    The OP might have called me out by stating that (rightly) <spanner> does not
    appear in the specs:)

    If you prefer the metaphor to the simile then it only strenghens my
    argument.

    Cheers
    Richard.
    rf, Nov 17, 2003
    #5
  6. Richard

    informant Guest

    "Richard" <anonymous@127.000> wrote in message
    news:...
    > You are correct that what I showed in the other thread as a two column
    > layout was anything but.


    Wow, an apology for being completely fucking wrong, St00pid?

    > It should be as follows:
    >
    > div.one {width:50px; height:50px; float:left;}
    > div.two {width:50px; height:50px;}
    >
    > <div class="one">hello</div>
    > <div class="two">world</div>
    >
    > The difference between becoming rows or columns is the float attribute.
    > The addition of another division below the second one results in a new

    row.
    > If float was included in the second divison attributes, a third division
    > would create a third column.


    "rf" states you're still wrong, Bullis. You can't even get an admission of
    being wrong, right.

    > With respect to the poster whose question started this argument, I still
    > contend that divisons are an alternate method of displaying content
    > regardless of it being tabular data or not.
    > All browsers AFAIK, are required to handle tables. They are not required

    to
    > handle CSS and divisions.
    > IMNSHO, I feel it is user's discretion as to which to use for

    presentation.

    Now you're just compounding your errors, Bullis.

    > If we negate all the nasty no no's this group of so called experts insist
    > upon NOT doing, what do we have to left to work with but standard, basic,
    > html.
    > I say bullshit. If the writer wishes it to be that way, then who are you

    to
    > tell him otherwise?


    There you go, St00pid. Make a 180 degree turn and shit all over yourself
    again.

    > If someone wants to use javascript, why do you badmouth that person so

    much?
    > Why don't you bitch and whine to sites like www.download.com? Ever seen
    > their source code? Nothing but tables. Oh and they use javascript too.
    > Oh and how about www.microsoft.com ? Again, all tables.


    And here I was thinking you might ingratiate yourself and undo all my
    efforts here. Nice work, dolt.

    > So let's have you give Mr. Bill Gates highly paid experts a piece of your
    > mind and tell them they're not allowed to use tables or javascript. And do
    > be sure to refer them to your sources of information.
    >
    > Now where's all your fancy work to show us at huh?


    Where's yours, retarded oaf?

    Path:
    sn-us!sn-xit-06!sn-xit-08!supernews.com!news.tele.dk!news.tele.dk!small.news
    ..tele.dk!newsfeed.icl.net!newsfeed.fjserv.net!logbridge.uoregon.edu!pln-w!sp
    ln!dex!extra.newsguy.com!newsp.newsguy.com!enews4
    From: "Richard" <anonymous@127.000>
    Newsgroups: alt.html
    Subject: "rf" I admit I made an error
    Date: Sun, 16 Nov 2003 23:47:14 -0600
    Organization: http://extra.newsguy.com
    Lines: 39
    Message-ID: <>
    NNTP-Posting-Host: p-420.newsdawg.com
    Keywords: cocksucking informant needs your dick now
    X-Priority: 3
    X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
    X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1106
    X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106
    X-No-Archive: yes
    FL-Build: Fidolook 2002 (SL) 6.0.2600.78 - 24/10/2002 21:18:29
    Xref: sn-us alt.html:438305
    informant, Nov 17, 2003
    #6
  7. Richard

    informant Guest

    "rf" <> wrote in message
    news:YP_tb.14214$...
    >
    > "Richard" <anonymous@127.000> wrote in message
    > news:...
    > > You are correct

    >
    > Of course :)
    >
    > > that what I showed in the other thread as a two column
    > > layout was anything but.

    >
    > > It should be as follows:
    > >
    > > div.one {width:50px; height:50px; float:left;}
    > > div.two {width:50px; height:50px;}
    > >
    > > <div class="one">hello</div>
    > > <div class="two">world</div>

    >
    > Tables usually have borders around the cells. Where are the borders?
    >
    > > The difference between becoming rows or columns is the float attribute.
    > > The addition of another division below the second one results in a new

    > row.
    >
    > No it does not. Well, it does with your trivial content but any real

    "table"
    > would have much more realistic content. Here is your "table" with some

    more
    > content in each cell and with two 'rows' and with borders around the divs.
    >
    > http://users.bigpond.net.au/rf/test/talkingoutofarse2.html
    >
    > Hardly a "table" :)
    >
    > > If float was included in the second divison attributes, a third division
    > > would create a third column.

    >
    > http://users.bigpond.net.au/rf/test/talkingoutofarse3.html
    >
    > > With respect to the poster whose question started this argument, I still
    > > contend that divisons are an alternate method of displaying content
    > > regardless of it being tabular data or not.

    >
    > No, they are not. div's are only an alternative to HTML tables if those

    divs
    > are made into CSS tables, for which browser support is quite poor.
    >
    > If the content is tabular in shape then it should reside in a table.
    > <simile>One uses a spannar to tighten a nut, not a hammer.</simile>
    >
    > > All browsers AFAIK, are required to handle tables. They are not required

    > to
    > > handle CSS and divisions.

    >
    > AFAIK and I *do* know: browsers are not *required* to handle anything

    other
    > than what the author of that browser has decided to handle. Please cite a
    > reference into the specifications where it is stated that browsers *must*
    > handle tables.
    >
    > You will not be able to because the spec says that, in general, a browser
    > *may* support the elements contained therein. Specifically, the spec

    states
    > that, if a browser optionally *does not* support an element then the

    browser
    > *must* ignore that element. Hardly "required to support" IMNSHO.
    >
    > > IMNSHO, I feel it is user's discretion as to which to use for

    > presentation.
    >
    > IMNSHO I feel that the author should, no must use the correct tool to
    > express the design.
    >
    > <snip rest of crap>


    You should feel honored, rf. This is the first known instance of Bullis
    apologizing and admitting he's wrong. Of course, he fucked it all up and
    k00ked out, but that's Bullis.
    informant, Nov 17, 2003
    #7
  8. Richard

    informant Guest

    "e n | c k m a" <> wrote in message
    news:b9_tb.14083$...
    > > IMNSHO, I feel it is user's discretion as to which to use for

    > presentation.
    >
    > Interesting. I read an article on the web lately [or perhaps it was a
    > discussion here] by a web designer who put it very well. The article made
    > me realise that web design isn't for the designer to control. It's for

    the
    > user to control. This is a very hard concept to grasp if you're used to
    > having control as a designer - particularly in print and/or television.


    Bulis will never understand this.

    > I've only started to get used to it myself.
    >
    > > If we negate all the nasty no no's this group of so called experts

    insist
    > > upon NOT doing, what do we have to left to work with but standard,

    basic,
    > > html.

    >
    > I agree, it can be very difficult to come up with engaging designs using
    > simply HTML and CSS. It just takes a lot more experience and the will to
    > learn and improve.


    Then that leaves Bullis out. There is no evidence that he has the ability to
    learn anything the correct way. He can't even apologize without turning
    nasty.

    > > I say bullshit. If the writer wishes it to be that way, then who are you

    > to
    > > tell him otherwise?

    >
    > Refer to my first response.
    >
    > > Now where's all your fancy work to show us at huh?

    >
    > Actually, I like this site I did recently. It was a mock-up design for a
    > company I'm starting with a friend.
    >
    > URL:http://144.132.34.224/stryde/
    >
    > It uses XHTML 1.1 Strict and CSS [yes, I know it's useless using XHTML now
    > but I didn't know that at that time].
    >
    > I also did: URL:http://www.strategis.com.au/
    >
    > Which, admittedly, is using tables for layout. When I updated the site
    > recently, I tried hard to come up with a CSS alternative that I
    > unfortunately could not find. It's using a very old doctype but still

    looks
    > professional and is still usable in almost all browsers (I think). The
    > client said most people visiting their site would be using Internet
    > Explorer. So if it's acceptable to them, then it's acceptable to me. I
    > still made sure it worked in a lot of other browsers first, though.
    >
    > Nicko.
    >
    >
    informant, Nov 17, 2003
    #8
  9. Richard

    Richard Guest

    rf! wrote:


    > "Richard" <anonymous@127.000> wrote in message
    > news:...
    >> You are correct


    > Of course :)


    >> that what I showed in the other thread as a two column
    >> layout was anything but.


    >> It should be as follows:
    >>
    >> div.one {width:50px; height:50px; float:left;}
    >> div.two {width:50px; height:50px;}
    >>
    >> <div class="one">hello</div>
    >> <div class="two">world</div>


    > Tables usually have borders around the cells. Where are the borders?


    >> The difference between becoming rows or columns is the float attribute.
    >> The addition of another division below the second one results in a new

    > row.


    > No it does not. Well, it does with your trivial content but any real
    > "table" would have much more realistic content. Here is your "table" with
    > some more content in each cell and with two 'rows' and with borders
    > around the divs.


    > http://users.bigpond.net.au/rf/test/talkingoutofarse2.html


    > Hardly a "table" :)


    >> If float was included in the second divison attributes, a third division
    >> would create a third column.


    > http://users.bigpond.net.au/rf/test/talkingoutofarse3.html


    And both of your examples did precisely what I said they would.
    As you entered more content than the box could handle, the box naturally
    expanded.
    The expansion causes the overlapping of the second row of boxes.
    Richard, Nov 17, 2003
    #9
  10. Richard

    rf Guest

    "Richard" <anonymous@127.000> wrote in message
    news:...
    > rf! wrote:
    >
    > > http://users.bigpond.net.au/rf/test/talkingoutofarse2.html

    >
    > > Hardly a "table" :)

    >
    > > http://users.bigpond.net.au/rf/test/talkingoutofarse3.html

    >
    > And both of your examples did precisely what I said they would.


    Just where in any of your posts did you say the adding content to the
    'cells' would stuff up the 'tabular' design? You are just inventing moronic
    excuses.

    > As you entered more content than the box could handle, the box naturally
    > expanded.
    > The expansion causes the overlapping of the second row of boxes.


    That is the WHOLE BLOODY POINT of those examples. To show to the unspecting
    newbie that your ideas are a crock of shit.

    <thinks>I must stop banging my head against this concrete wall</thinks>

    Cheers
    Richard.
    rf, Nov 17, 2003
    #10
  11. Richard

    14942 Guest

    "e n | c k m a" <> wrote in message news:<b9_tb.14083$>...

    > I also did: URL:http://www.strategis.com.au/
    >
    > I still made sure it worked in a lot of other browsers first, though.


    Well, it doesn't work at all in Mozilla 1.5. It prompts me to download
    the main page. The other pages work as expected, but not the main
    page.
    14942, Nov 18, 2003
    #11
  12. > Well, it doesn't work at all in Mozilla 1.5. It prompts me to download
    > the main page. The other pages work as expected, but not the main
    > page.


    Not my fault, the clients are holding it on a server and their admin has all
    their index pages as .tml - I don't even know what that's for. I've told
    them to change it but they say "people that visit our site will be using
    IE..." so I said fine.
    e n | c k m a, Nov 19, 2003
    #12
  13. e n | c k m a wrote:

    > Not my fault, the clients are holding it on a server and their admin has all
    > their index pages as .tml - I don't even know what that's for.


    Well there is nothing wrong with that. Just tell them to set the MIME type
    for ".tml" to "text/html". I'm sure there are IIS4 tutorials out there
    that will explain how -- I can't imagine it taking more than 5 minutes.

    --
    Toby A Inkster BSc (Hons) ARCS
    Contact Me - http://www.goddamn.co.uk/tobyink/?page=132
    Toby A Inkster, Nov 19, 2003
    #13
  14. > Well there is nothing wrong with that. Just tell them to set the MIME type
    > for ".tml" to "text/html". I'm sure there are IIS4 tutorials out there
    > that will explain how -- I can't imagine it taking more than 5 minutes.


    I'm sure they'd know how to do it, I just doubt they want to - a bit
    strange, don't you think?
    e n | c k m a, Nov 20, 2003
    #14
  15. Richard

    Nick Howes Guest

    "e n | c k m a" <> wrote in message
    news:b9_tb.14083$...
    > It uses XHTML 1.1 Strict and CSS [yes, I know it's useless using XHTML now
    > but I didn't know that at that time].
    >


    Why is XHTML useless? is it the impending XML replacement? I'm not arguing a
    point, I just don't know :)
    Nick Howes, Nov 22, 2003
    #15
  16. Toby A Inkster, Nov 22, 2003
    #16
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. thespid
    Replies:
    6
    Views:
    347
    Anthony Borla
    Dec 21, 2003
  2. Homer
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    16,519
    Homer
    Aug 13, 2007
  3. , India
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    317
    Paul Bibbings
    Jul 25, 2010
  4. Merhawi Fissehaye
    Replies:
    9
    Views:
    2,531
    Simon Krahnke
    May 3, 2012
  5. Alf P. Steinbach
    Replies:
    6
    Views:
    195
Loading...

Share This Page