W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > August 2002

Re: Float overflowing behavior!

From: Vadim Plessky <lucy-ples@mtu-net.ru>
Date: Fri, 16 Aug 2002 13:50:34 +0400
To: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
Cc: "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
Message-Id: <200208161350.35347.lucy-ples@mtu-net.ru>

On Friday 16 August 2002 12:21 pm, Ian Hickson wrote:
|  On Fri, 16 Aug 2002, Vadim Plessky wrote:
|  > Jan Roland's code is Valid HTML and Valid CSS, you can't call this
|  > wrong!
|
|  http://ln.hixie.ch/?start=1022362838&count=1

<quote Ian Hickson>
Well, sorry, but writing a Web page using only <span>s and <div>s, using 
tables for layout in a document labelled as being HTML 4.01 Strict, sending 
XML files as text/html or CSS files as text/plain, saying width:100% when you 
mean width:auto, giving alt attributes that contain titles instead of 
alternate text... that isn't standards compliant. Those violations might not 
be caught by the imperfect and limited validators that the W3C provides, but 
they are just as bad if not worse than the simple technical errors that are 
caught by these automated verification tools.
</quote Ian Kickson>

Well, I understand that this is your *private* opinion, and you, as every 
human being, have a right for own opinion.

But I naturally disagree with your opinion quaoted above.

In particular,
1) writing a Web page using only <span>s and <div>s
what's wrong with that?

2) using tables for layout
 --> here I agree. Thoughs different peole have differnet opiniuons what is 
*layout* and what is *structure*

3) document labelled as being HTML 4.01 Strict
 what's wrong with this? It's much better than <html> without DTD.
Of course XHTML is better, but HTML 4.01-Strict is *good enough* for most 
applications.

4) saying width:100% when you mean width:auto
How do you *know* what people *mean*? Do you have CrystalBall?

Using 'width:auto' when you need div taking all width, is stupid, STUPID 
approach!

5) "Those violations might not be caught by the imperfect and limited 
validators that the W3C provides, but they are just as bad if not worse than 
the simple technical errors that are caught by these automated verification 
tools."

So, *good guys* wrote _perfect_ W3C specification, and there are *bad guys* 
using it in a wrong way?
Are you SERIOUS saying this?
If W3C designed bad specification, or offers bad validation tools- that's the 
problem of W3C, not of web authors!

-- 

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 Friday, 16 August 2002 05:44:20 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 27 April 2009 13:54:15 GMT