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

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

From: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2002 18:10:30 +0000
Message-ID: <3C73E696.4080302@hixie.ch>
To: Vadim Plessky <lucy-ples@mtu-net.ru>
CC: www-style@w3.org
Vadim Plessky wrote:
>> Tables are not going anywhere soon
> Are you sure?

As sure as I am that the inline box model isn't going anywhere soon.


> Well, I can understand when you speak on behalf of Mozilla

Nothing I say is ever on behalf of Mozilla. I have no authority to speak on 
behalf of the mozilla.org project.


 > - but please do not make such long-term judgements basing on it.

I have no idea what this means.


> If you can check WAI-IG mailing list archives: many people use Lynx

Including me. What has that got to do with anything to do with CSS?


>>> 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 was correcting you. Tables are a CSS2 Chapter, NOT a CSS3 Module. There are 
absolutely no CSS3 Modules in REC stage yet. There are only two in Candidate Rec 
stage, of which one is a profile, and one is a superset of CSS2.


> 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.

They could also skip CSS3 altogether and simply implement CSS4. Or skip the 
whole of CSS and go back to HTML 3.2. I doubt they will, though.


> Who cares about CSS2 nowdays?

CSS2 is the latest revision of CSS. Anybody who is implementing CSS should be 
basing their implementation on CSS2.


> There is a CSS3, and there is no reason to implement *old* stuff when you can 
> go directly to a newer one.

There is no CSS3 REC.


>> 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.

That is incorrect. I have already pointed you to one of my CSS table-based 
pages, here is another:

    http://www.mozillaquestquest.com/


> Can you explain Mozilla's position on this, please?

Mozilla has supported CSS2 table layout for years. Indeed it is used to 
implement its HTML table support.


> Well, than we face more fundamental question: wether HTML should be used?..

Yes, HTML should be used.


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

XHTML Basic _is_ XML.

-- 
Ian Hickson
``The inability of a user agent to implement part of this specification due to
the limitations of a particular device (e.g., non interactive user agents will
probably not implement dynamic pseudo-classes because they make no sense
without interactivity) does not imply non-conformance.'' -- Selectors, Sec13
Received on Wednesday, 20 February 2002 13:11:03 GMT

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