RE: [#293] Summary for tables

Jens Meiert wrote:

> Nice arrogant reply, very constructive.

I'm sorry if I seem arrogant; it's not my intention, and
I can tell you that I'm not. I see and understand your
problems, but I don't agree with your solutions.

> Again -- I want my documents available, accessible and
> usable for almost all potential users, and sometimes
> [...], (layout) tables are (or were) helpful, if not
> even necessary

Yes, layout tables were necessary some years ago, when
most UA's still had v4.0 stamped on them. But today, it
isn't, and it's a better solution to get to authors write
semantically correct HTML than to make a hack in the HTML
spec to get semantically wrong HTML to "work".

> But if you're only that pseudo-expert having no practice
> at all, testing your markup only in IE 6, you won't
> understand.

What makes you get that impression of me?

> I don't need any specification advocate when this ain't
> serving former or current needs. 

Current needs are based on bad code, and instead of making
the bad code work, I think we (as a web authoring community)
should make the bad code right.

-- 
Asbjørn Ulsberg           -=|=-          X-No-Archive: No
"He's a loathsome offensive brute, yet I can't look away"