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

Fwd: [#293] Summary for tables

From: Jens Meiert <jens.meiert@erde3.com>
Date: Thu, 17 Jul 2003 12:32:57 +0200 (MEST)
To: koch@w3development.de
Cc: www-html@w3.org
Message-ID: <18507.1058437977@www1.gmx.net>

> Java 1.4 introduction

--> J2E 1.4 introduction



> 
> > 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>
> 


-- 
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 06:33:04 GMT

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