W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-gl@w3.org > January to March 2001

Re: Layout tables

From: William Loughborough <love26@gorge.net>
Date: Fri, 09 Mar 2001 01:18:02 -0800
Message-Id: <5.0.2.1.2.20010309010741.055ca260@mail.gorge.net>
To: jasonw@ariel.ucs.unimelb.edu.au
Cc: Al Gilman <asgilman@iamdigex.net>, <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
At 03:43 PM 3/9/01 +1100, Jason White wrote:
>With XHTML 2.0, there is no need to retain the legacy

This is all very wonderful except for the use of the present tense. If you 
had said "...there will be no need..." there'd be no quibble.

The *several-year-lag* between now and when there not only *is* such a 
thing as XHTML 2.0 but there are browsers/validators/users/ of it makes 
such diversive/divisive discussions like the present HUGE thread 
inevitable. What is said about the inadequacies of using <table> for 
positioning makes sense to everybody except the vast majority of our audience.

Not to say we mustn't do what we have to but like the years it is taking to 
specify/publicize/train/debug CSS, the same will happen with this and other 
legacy/deprecated/semantically-inadequate/+ techniques.

If it were something as simple as changing the price of postage without 
being swamped with overuse of the "returned for insufficient postage" 
rubber stamp, it might be OK but we have to overcome a built-in set of 
blindless-related mental prejudices and it will take 
time/patience/understanding of the mindset that holds an enormous backlog 
of "seeing is believing", etc. "logic".

--
Love.
                 ACCESSIBILITY IS RIGHT - NOT PRIVILEGE
Received on Friday, 9 March 2001 04:19:47 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:47:09 GMT