- From: Chuck Letourneau <cpl@starlingweb.com>
- Date: Mon, 08 Dec 1997 15:13:14 -0500
- To: w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
CPL:: I am starting this new thread based on the following comment made by Daniel Dardailler regarding the mention of TABLES in the recommendation to use Style Sheets in the Page Author Guideline: DD:: Reality check. I think it is not reasonable to mark as "required" not using table to layout things, and to put it in the same bullet list as horrible things like converting text to image or using 1pixel gif. CSS2 positioning will provide better support for absolute position of boxes on page and there is already some floating properties in CSS1, but we're still far from the implicit-rescaling and the simple layout model provided by table rows and columns. Plus there are thousands of such tables out already and I don't see them moving to any kind of positioning anytime soon (W3C being on my top list). I would argue for talking about TABLE in the table section only, while exposing the details of making TABLE (even used for layout) accessible. More comments there. End DD. CPL:: I think we need to discuss this. My own opinion is that it is reasonable to leave the statement: "Use style sheets rather than:... using tables or PRE elements to layout pages". A strong statement such as that may catch an author's eye and cause them to think about their techniques. Perhaps the statement should link to the TABLEs section. I have been looking at example pages that use the MS IE 3.0 supported version of CSS(1), and they chock full of TABLES to overcome the deficiencies of that version. People are likely to continue to use both CSS and TABLES to achieve their goals, since TABLES are sometimes easier and more logical as Daniel mentions. End CPL. Chuck ---- Starling Access Services "Access A World Of Possibility" e-mail: info@starlingweb.com URL: http://www.starlingweb.com Phone: 613-820-2272 FAX: 613-820-6983
Received on Monday, 8 December 1997 15:12:09 UTC