Re: revisiting advice in HTML on tables used for layout

Hi Yukka,

As far as I can see, Steve's intent was to add informative text using those
> words, not to replace the current wording. And "not recommended" is not
> normative, whereas "should not" is normative, though in a vague way (you
> can always claim conformance, with some suitable explanation).
>

 'SHOULD NOT   This phrase, or the phrase "NOT RECOMMENDED"'
http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2119.txt

mean the same

So I think it would wasted effort to add informative text.


lucky I didn't ask you to write it then :-)

--

Regards

SteveF
HTML 5.1 <http://www.w3.org/html/wg/drafts/html/master/>


On 31 January 2014 14:47, Jukka K. Korpela <jukka.k.korpela@kolumbus.fi>wrote:

>  2014-01-31 15:24, contact@thecodeplayground.net wrote:
>
>
>  I think the normative "not recommended" is indeed more approriate.
>
>
> As far as I can see, Steve's intent was to add informative text using
> those words, not to replace the current wording. And "not recommended" is
> not normative, whereas "should not" is normative, though in a vague way
> (you can always claim conformance, with some suitable explanation).
>
>
>  Nonetheless, accessibility shouldn't be pointed out as being the only
> issue in using table markup for layout. Semantics,  performance and
> efficiency are also points that suffer from the heavy and useless markup of
> tables. All this can impact in the overall user experience (and not only
> screen reader users').
>
>  Such arguments have often been presented, almost always without giving
> any factual evidence. In some discussions, more concrete arguments might
> pop up, but they typically turn out to relate to specific ways of using
> layout tables - and quite often, in a manner that makes them extend to
> other layout tools as well. For example, amount of code does not really
> depend on using layout tables but on the way you use them. You could have
> absolutely minimal HTML markup for a table and do all width, height,
> alignment, font, border, and other settings in CSS.
>
> I'm afraid the principle "don't use tables for layout" has become a slogan
> and a meme that gets repeated, in slightly different forms, over and over
> again, with some very abstract arguments given to support it. It is often
> exaggerated so that even perfectly normal data tables are explained as
> being layout tables, or the slogan is simplified to "don't use tables".
>
> The current normative text says that tables should not be used as layout
> aids. It's the first sentence there. I don't see how much stronger you
> could put it, unless you want to say "shall not". The text is rather
> abstract and it exaggerates a lot, but I don't think it's realistic to open
> the case.
>
> It would be a major effort to write a description of the negative
> consequences of layout tables, if it would be based on facts, backed up
> with references, and written in such a manner that some kind of
> consensus-like acceptance could be achieved. And it would be a matter of
> careful study and discussions, not just adding a few explanatory notes. It
> would need to start with a definition of what "layout table" really means -
> e.g., quite often even a table of controls and labels for them is accused
> of being a "layout table".  I'm pretty sure it would be difficult to reach
> any consensus even on the definition.
>
> So I think it would wasted effort to add informative text.
>
> -- Yucca, http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/
>