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

CSS, css, etc. [css layout should be symmetrical]

From: Vadim Plessky <lucy-ples@mtu-net.ru>
Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2002 19:02:33 +0300
To: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
Cc: www-style@w3.org
Message-ID: <auto-000020160825@umail.ru>
On Wednesday 20 February 2002 18:10, Ian Hickson wrote:
|   Vadim Plessky wrote:
|   > Well, there is no warranty that Tables will be supported in future
|   > versions of CSS.
|   Tables are not going anywhere soon.

Are you sure?
Well, I can understand when you speak on behalf of Mozilla - but please do 
not make such long-term judgements basing on it.
If you can check WAI-IG mailing list archives: many people use Lynx, and 
prefer it to many other browsers. And people think that it will make sense to 
have simple, fast, not consuming a lot of memory browser, which will do CSS 
Core and XHTML basic. Mozilla and MS IE fall out of this category...

|   > So far, Tables is part of CSS3 Tables module - and this module is
|   > optional.
|   Tables are a CSS2 Chapter and are as mandatory as the rest of CSS2.

Have I said something about CSS2?
I guess I wrote clear enough: **CSS3** (Three)

The fact that Tables are *mandatory* in CSS2 means that we need skip CSS2 
(from implementor's point of view) and accelerate adoption of CSS3.
That's what I also expressed in my posting with subject
   "inline" elements in CSS2 box model, and "inline-block" in CSS3 
and thread which followed it.

|   > You can develop CSS-compliant browser whcih doesn't support tables at
|   > all.
|   You cannot build a fully-compliant CSS2 graphical browser without
| supporting tables.

Who cares about CSS2 nowdays?
There is a CSS3, and there is no reason to implement *old* stuff when you can 
go directly to a newer one.

|   > Therefore, Tables in CSS *should not* be used for layout.
|   Are you saying that anything that was not part of CSS1 should never be
| used? What is the point of the working group continuing to develop CSS in
| that case?

No, you again making wrong assumption.
I favour CSS3, not CSS1 :-))

As about quality of some CSS *development* - please read thread 
   How is it possible to devise such a feeble system?
It seems you missed that thread - but joining later is better than never :-)

|   > special 'display' properties were added to CSS in order to be able to
|   > render tabular data for pure XML (not XHTML!)
|   No. The special properties were added so that table-like grid layout
| could be done in CSS for _any_ markup language, including HTML and XHTML.

Theoretically, that's right.
But I did some research in that direction - and it shows that neither Mozilla 
nor MS IE can render CSS2 'table-*' properties. Konqueror handles it much 
better but still fails on some tetss.
Well, to be fare: MS never said that they support CSS2.
Can you explain Mozilla's position on this, please?
|   > Some people assumed that 'table-cell', 'table-row', etc. should be used
|   > for HTML and XHTML as well.
|   > To my best understandimng, this is wrong.
|   > Tables in CSS should be used only with XML!
|   That is incorrect. I am curious as to what gave you that impression?

Discussions with some people, on WAI mailing lists and off-list, in 
Plus, discussions with key KDE developers.

Plus: the fact that neither Microsoft nor Netscape/Mozilla claims CSS2 
Does it make sense to have a spec when you don't have any reference 

|   > |   The only reason that CSS Tables are not suitable for centering is
|   > | that the actual CSS used is too complicated:
|   > |
|   > |       http://www.damowmow.com/mozilla/demos/centering/
|   >
|   > again tables...
|   > We should get rid of them - tables are for represnting Tabular data,
|   > not for layouting!
|   This is an incorrect assertion. As I said, tables in HTML should be used
| for tabular data and have nothing to do with layout, but tables in CSS
| should be used for layout and have nothing to do with tabular data.

Well, than we face more fundamental question: wether HTML should be used?..
So far, it's some kind of "legacy support", and supporting HTML usage you 
delay the date when web will be easy to use, fast to load, and content 
divided from the presentation (visual rendering, in particular)

I, personally, found even XHTML Basic too bloated, and would prefer to use 
XML when possible. (for example, on corporate Intranet, for presentations, 

Vadim Plessky
http://kde2.newmail.ru  (English)
33 Window Decorations and 6 Widget Styles for KDE
KDE mini-Themes
Received on Wednesday, 20 February 2002 11:02:26 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 2 May 2016 14:27:00 UTC