W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-ig@w3.org > January to March 2002

Re: <tr> and <td> closing tags

From: dody suria wijaya <dodysw@telkom.net>
Date: Wed, 13 Mar 2002 21:07:41 +0700
Message-ID: <3480667283.20020313210741@telkom.net>
To: w3c-wai-ig@w3.org

yeah.  non-compliant  to  XHTML  is  a  problem  for future new non-pc
devices. but it is not the only trouble.

current  web  design  is  only  tested  for  legibility  under popular
PC-based  browser.  and  most  web  designer would not sacrifice 'cool
factor'  (flash,  animated gif, big jpeg, moving button, etc) just for
the sake of accessibility to all devices.

most  web  designer  in  the  near future  would  probably give alternative
version to choose for instead:

  (1) for people with PC.

  the  design will be just like today. but even more complicated, more
  non-compliant, and more abusive (table as layout etc). web
  designer will get younger and more abundant = more design mistakes.

  (2) for people with non-PC.


a  lazy  webmaster  aiming  for  as many people as possible, will only
built  (2).  a young, non-experienced, 'cool' designer will only built
(1). bigger and commerce website will build both.

currently, there is a race between:

 -  small  devices increasing computing power and logic to render more
 non-compliant websites.

 - and web designer learning to write more compliant websites so it
 can be rendered on more devices.

in  such a way that we shouldn't worry much about in-existance of <tr>
and <td> closing tags of today.

though  i  agree that to support non-pc internet devices manufacturer,
some  one  should  buy that products, which depends on how good it can
render most websites, which depends on people writing compliant code.
everyone has a role here ;)

Wednesday, March 13, 2002, 3:36:21 PM, you wrote:

CM> It is compliant with HTML, but not with XHTML. In other words you will be
CM> backwards compatible still, but not forwards compatible. It saves bytes over
CM> the network, at the cost of kilobytes in browser size, meaning more expensive
CM> systems are required to read it.

CM> (One of the reasons why phone systems all work on XML is that it can be used
CM> in a smaller computer, and phones have small computers in them)

CM> This is the classic chicken and egg problem that plagues accessibility, in
CM> one of its easier forms. If developers do not produce forwards-compatible
CM> code, then there is little point in having newer systems that are designed to
CM> take advantage of design improvements. So the relatively expensive work of
CM> developing accessible systems that take advantage of that will have a tiny
CM> market.

-- 
 dody suria wijaya -> mailto:dody@failco.com -> http://failco.com
Received on Wednesday, 13 March 2002 09:08:37 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 19 July 2011 18:14:01 GMT