3 ms·

* that doesn't mean they wouldn't be much more productive using something better suited to layout* What would you suggest is better suited to layouts than CSS?

by pj 18y ago

fauigerzigerk 18y ago
I agree with Ron Garret that tables are a better fit in most cases, even though they do have their own drawbacks that I'm not denying. I don't buy the argument that tables somehow imply semantics that contradict their use in layouting. Tables have no semantics without a formal system that lends them semantics (like the relational model). I'm not aware that the W3C or anyone else defined the formal meaning of tables, and since HTML is a UI technology I don't see why "table" should not be interpreted as a form of laying out content in rows and columns.
- tripngroove 18y ago
  "Tables should not be used purely as a means to layout document content as this may present problems when rendering to non-visual media. Additionally, when used with graphics, these tables may force users to scroll horizontally to view a table designed on a system with a larger display. To minimize these problems, authors should use style sheets to control layout rather than tables." http://www.w3.org/TR/html401/struct/tables.html#h-11.2.1 http://www.w3.org/TR/html401/struct/tables.html#h-11.2.1
  - fauigerzigerk 18y ago
    The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119] http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2119.txt http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2119.txt From that RFC: SHOULD This word, or the adjective "RECOMMENDED", mean that there may exist valid reasons in particular circumstances to ignore a particular item, but the full implications must be understood and carefully weighed before choosing a different course.

3 ms·

* that doesn't mean they wouldn't be much more productive using something better suited to layout* What would you suggest is better suited to layouts than CSS?

by pj 18y ago

* that doesn't mean they wouldn't be much more productive using something better suited to layout* What would you suggest is better suited to layouts than CSS?

fauigerzigerk 18y ago
I agree with Ron Garret that tables are a better fit in most cases, even though they do have their own drawbacks that I'm not denying. I don't buy the argument that tables somehow imply semantics that contradict their use in layouting. Tables have no semantics without a formal system that lends them semantics (like the relational model). I'm not aware that the W3C or anyone else defined the formal meaning of tables, and since HTML is a UI technology I don't see why "table" should not be interpreted as a form of laying out content in rows and columns.
- tripngroove 18y ago
  "Tables should not be used purely as a means to layout document content as this may present problems when rendering to non-visual media. Additionally, when used with graphics, these tables may force users to scroll horizontally to view a table designed on a system with a larger display. To minimize these problems, authors should use style sheets to control layout rather than tables." http://www.w3.org/TR/html401/struct/tables.html#h-11.2.1 http://www.w3.org/TR/html401/struct/tables.html#h-11.2.1
  - fauigerzigerk 18y ago
    The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119] http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2119.txt http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2119.txt From that RFC: SHOULD This word, or the adjective "RECOMMENDED", mean that there may exist valid reasons in particular circumstances to ignore a particular item, but the full implications must be understood and carefully weighed before choosing a different course.