W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-html@w3.org > July 2003

Re: [#293] Summary for tables

From: Jens Meiert <jens.meiert@erde3.com>
Date: Thu, 17 Jul 2003 12:22:04 +0200 (MEST)
To: Johannes Koch <koch@w3development.de>
Cc: www-html@w3.org
Message-ID: <21754.1058437324@www1.gmx.net>

> 1. This will make people think that layout with tables is good, because 
> XHTML allows the value 'table'.

Are tables (used for layout) really that bad...? I really see Accessibility
problems, but these would be removed introducing the type attribute. -- Maybe
XHTML 2 will us enable a 'new beginning' (e.g. not needing layout tables
anymore) and everything gets better, but maybe (and IMO likely) it is necessary
to use them later, too, and an optional type attribute (for emergency cases,
if you want) offers an alternative.

> 2. Is this a proposal for XHTML 2.0? When do you think XHTML 2.0 will be 
> implemented? Do you think browsers not capable of rendering a CSS (CSS 
> 2.0 rec is from 1998!) based layout will implement the table type 
> attribute earlier?

In general, it would be useful -->now. And I think it's not important when
anything is implemented properly by e.g. browser vendors, since it is
characteristic for the IT landscape that there are many recommendations,
specifications etc. you first have to wait until you can really and properly use them
(see the Java 1.4 introduction, or the buggy CSS 2 support, take what you want
-- often you have to pass on possible features for maybe weeks, maybe years).

-- Last but not least, my proposal was rather an idea how the problem could
have been solved quite earlier than to start a discussion about who, where
and when. And I can live without it.


Best regards,
 Jens.



> Jens Meiert wrote:
> >>Using "class" may not be perfect but it will be used very infrequently
> (I
> >>guess) and defining this CSS class should not cause much hindrance to
> the
> >>author.
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > The idea sounds great, but I rather suggest a 'type' attribute for
> tables
> > (which really expresses the way it is used), like
> > 
> >    <table type="layout" />
> > 
> > thus implying e.g. an optional 'data' value.
> 
> 1. This will make people think that layout with tables is good, because 
> XHTML allows the value 'table'.
> 2. Is this a proposal for XHTML 2.0? When do you think XHTML 2.0 will be 
> implemented? Do you think browsers not capable of rendering a CSS (CSS 
> 2.0 rec is from 1998!) based layout will implement the table type 
> attribute earlier?
> -- 
> Johannes Koch
> In te domine speravi; non confundar in aeternum.
>                              (Te Deum, 4th cent.)
> 
> 


-- 
Jens Meiert

Steubenstr. 28
D-26123 Oldenburg

Mobil +49 (0)175 78 4146 5
Telefon +49 (0)441 99 86 147
Telefax +49 (0)89 1488 2325 91

Mail <jens@meiert.com>
Internet <http://meiert.com>
Received on Thursday, 17 July 2003 06:22:14 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 27 March 2012 18:15:56 GMT