"rf" I admit I made an error

R

Richard

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?
 
E

e n | c k m a

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.
 
R

rf

Richard said:
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.
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.
 
R

rf

Hywel Jenkins said:
"rf" <[email protected]> wrote in message

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.
 
I

informant

Richard said:
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" <[email protected]>
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: <[email protected]>
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
 
I

informant

rf said:
Of course :)



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

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" :)


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.


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.

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.
 
I

informant

e n | c k m a said:
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.


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.
 
R

Richard

rf! wrote:

Of course :)
Tables usually have borders around the cells. Where are the borders?

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.

Hardly a "table" :)

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.
 
R

rf

Richard said:
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.
 
E

e n | c k m a

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.
 
T

Toby A Inkster

e said:
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.
 
E

e n | c k m a

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?
 
N

Nick Howes

e n | c k m a said:
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 :)
 

Ask a Question

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

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments. After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.

Ask a Question

Members online

No members online now.

Forum statistics

Threads
473,755
Messages
2,569,536
Members
45,013
Latest member
KatriceSwa

Latest Threads

Top