RE: [wcag2] Layout tables

Last time I built a site just using just CSS I got into trouble when it
looked bad on old browsers etc...

Reality check... And call for real life information
Does a professional site without tables for layout truly look and behave
as professionally as on that uses tables.

Does the CSS positioning work consistently?
Can text overwrite text as the window gets dragged or resized?



All the best
Lisa Seeman
 
Visit us at the UB Access website
UB Access - Moving internet accessibility
 


> -----Original Message-----
> From: w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org 
> [mailto:w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Mike Barta
> Sent: Friday, April 16, 2004 9:09 PM
> To: Yvette P. Hoitink; WAI-GL
> Subject: RE: [wcag2] Layout tables
> 
> 
> 
> I would read this as joe did.  We say that one _must_ follow 
> specification, the specification says that you _should_ not 
> misuse tables, ergo we say that you should, but not must.
> 
> While I agree with the intent that made this should I would 
> be wary of requiring a must here if only due to the enormous 
> quantity of content that uses tables for layout.  Most of the 
> content I know of is tabliscious [heh, word tried to correct 
> that to maliscious].  We should consider if this 'must' would 
> be an undue burden.
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org 
> [mailto:w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org] On Behalf > Of Yvette P. 
> Hoitink
> Sent: Friday, April 16, 2004 11:01 AM
> To: 'WAI-GL'
> Subject: RE: [wcag2] Layout tables
> 
> 
> Joe Clark pointed out:
> 
> > > Actually, at the moment we require in guideline 4.1, item 1b: [1]
> > > "structural elements and attributes are used as defined in the 
> > > specification."
> > 
> > The specification permits layout tables.
> > 
> > > In the HTML specification for tables, the introduction states: [2]
> > > "Tables should not be used purely as a means to layout document 
> > > content as
> > 
> > "Should not" does not mean "must not."
> 
> If we explicitely require to use structural elements as 
> defined in the specification, to me that suggested that we 
> require the authors to follow the 'shoulds' from that spec. 
> Perhaps the subtleties of the English language are still 
> somewhat beyond me :-)
> 
> Yvette Hoitink
> Heritas, Enschede, the Netherlands
> E-mail: y.p.hoitink@heritas.nl
> WWW: http://www.heritas.nl
> 
>

Received on Sunday, 18 April 2004 00:35:38 UTC