W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > July 2009

Re: R2866 : better talk about "CSS display" instead of "CSS tables"

From: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
Date: Wed, 1 Jul 2009 01:42:03 +0000 (UTC)
To: Olivier GENDRIN <olivier.gendrin@gmail.com>
Cc: public-html <public-html@w3.org>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.62.0907010139210.1060@hixie.dreamhostps.com>
On Fri, 5 Jun 2009, Olivier GENDRIN wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 5, 2009 at 1:55 AM, Ian Hickson<ian@hixie.ch> wrote:
> > On Mon, 27 Apr 2009, Olivier GENDRIN wrote:
> >> On Sun, Apr 26, 2009 at 12:52 AM, Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch> wrote:
> >> > On Tue, 24 Feb 2009, Olivier GENDRIN wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> Looking at r2866 [1], I note the sentence "primarily using CSS
> >> >> positioning and CSS tables." I think that it would be less confusing to
> >> >> talk about CSS display instead of CSS tables (and more accurate from a
> >> >> CSS spec point of view [2][3]).
> >> >>
> >> >> [1] http://html5.org/tools/web-apps-tracker?from=2865&to=2866
> >> >> [2] http://www.w3.org/TR/CSS2/visuren.html#display-prop
> >> >> [3] http://www.w3.org/TR/CSS2/visuren.html#positioning-scheme
> >> >
> >> > I don't understand why "CSS tables" is confusing, nor why it's inaccurate.
> >> > Could you elaborate?
> >>
> >> It's inaccurate because many noob web designers ignore the others ways
> >> of display content, beyond tables.
> >
> > Assuming you mean "beyond CSS tables", I don't think that's accurate at
> > all. Few authors of any kind, "noob" or not, use CSS tables today.
> 
> I would like I do, but no, I'm really talking about HTML table used for 
> display by total beginner.

Do you mean that they will see "CSS tables" and treat that as "HTML 
tables"? If so, I could buy that... maybe I should say something like "the 
CSS table model" or some such?

I've changed it to that, just in case that's what you mean.


> And web designer could not use CSS table yet because of the lack of 
> support by the common browsers.

Hopefully, since IE8 now supports CSS tables, by the time HTML5 is 
"ready", this will no longer be a concern.


> >> And because you are talking about "a variety of alternatives to using
> >> HTML tables for layout" without telling about floats (widely used,
> >> mostly because of the lack of support of display: table-cell).
> >
> > Using floats for this kind of layout is actually frowned upon by the CSS
> > working group, so I don't think we want to encourage this.
> 
> What does the CSS WG advice to avoid HTML tables ? Do you have an URL ?

I don't know if this has been said anywhere public by the CSSWG, sorry.


> >> I propose the sentence "<p class="note">There are a variety of 
> >> alternatives to using HTML tables for layout, through CSS: <a 
> >> href="">positioning</a>, <a href="">floating</a> or <a 
> >> href="">display</a> mode (like display: table, display: table-row, 
> >> display: table-cell, but also inline-block, or run-in, 
> >> compact).</p>".
> >>
> >> I hope I'm clear enough...
> >
> > I don't think that inline-block, run-in, or compact are suitable
> > alternatives to HTML tables abused for layout, and I don't think we want
> > to encourage floats. The result is the current paragraph.
> 
> Ok, I understand better your point of view, even if I think that
> you're too careful.

People don't normally accuse me of that! Quite the opposite usually! :-)

Cheers,
-- 
Ian Hickson               U+1047E                )\._.,--....,'``.    fL
http://ln.hixie.ch/       U+263A                /,   _.. \   _\  ;`._ ,.
Things that are impossible just take longer.   `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
Received on Wednesday, 1 July 2009 01:42:44 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Thursday, 29 October 2015 10:15:47 UTC