- From: Spartanicus <spartanicus.3@ntlworld.ie>
- Date: Tue, 22 Aug 2006 07:37:07 +0100
- To: www-style@w3.org
Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch> wrote: >Here's a study: > > http://code.google.com/webstats/index.html > >Take one example: writing a page with <table> markup is inefficient from >the point of view of browser page load times. Using a single table to create a basic "layout" does not need to increase the size of the code by more than a small and insignificant amount when compared to so-called "CSS layouts". ><table> is the 9th most >often used element. Conclusion: authors make bad decisions. That's a bit harsh. Let's not forget that CSS 1 & 2 failed to provide authors with a decent mechanism to create web layouts. This contrasts sharply with author's desire to use CSS to create layouts. The CSS methods that are currently commonly used and abused to overcome this shortcoming are the cause of much confusion and frustration amongst authors due to their inherent unsuitability for this purpose. Instead of blaming authors for using what works for them, lets acknowledge the failure in CSS 1 & 2 of not providing a layout mechanism. -- Spartanicus (email whitelist in use, non list-server mail will not be seen)
Received on Tuesday, 22 August 2006 06:49:01 UTC