- From: Vadim Plessky <lucy-ples@mtu-net.ru>
- Date: Mon, 7 Jan 2002 00:53:15 +0000
- To: Denise Wood <Denise_Wood@operamail.com>, w3c-wai-ig@w3.org
On Sunday 06 January 2002 15:15, Denise Wood wrote: [...] | | So I am just interested in seeing examples that Charles considers have | been coded correctly and therfore overcome all of the issues raised by Kynn | and Joe. If it is trivially obvious why is there continuing debate over the | use of CSS versus tables for layout? The reason for continuing debate is very simple: there are different people on the list, they do have different experience and objectives. If you continue to code in Tables - you do favour both to Microsoft and Netscape which together *invented* _broken table model_ If you code in CSS - there are some chances that your work will be better accessible by different categories of users. It's not absolutely necessary (that your layout with CSS will be betetr than with Tables) - but it worth trying... One important resaon which many people on this list tend to ignore is *HTML page size*. With all elements encoded with CSS, page size is much smaller. Please do not ignore people using dialup - broadband access is still very expensive, even in some regions of US. | | Denise | -- Vadim Plessky http://kde2.newmail.ru (English) 33 Window Decorations and 6 Widget Styles for KDE http://kde2.newmail.ru/kde_themes.html KDE mini-Themes http://kde2.newmail.ru/themes/
Received on Sunday, 6 January 2002 16:51:49 UTC