- From: Jim Wise <jimw@numenor.turner.com>
- Date: Thu, 10 Jul 1997 16:55:09 -0400 (EDT)
- To: "Chapman, Hass" <hass.chapman@sebank.se>
- Cc: walter@natural-innovations.com, www-html@w3.org
On Thu, 10 Jul 1997, Chapman, Hass wrote: > >> Suggestion: replace "abuse" with "are forced to resort to using". > > Or replace "abuse" with "have ingeneously come up with - e.g. using TABLES > to control layout (prior to CSS). What's ingenious about using HTML in a way which looks good on your particular browser/OS/hardware combination, but could break under other conforming implementations? > >Nonsense. No one is forcing you to misuse HTML. > > What is misuse? Using HTML in ways that were not the intention of those that > formulated the DTD can be very useful and productive e.g. use of TABLES > (again). Sure, but counting on all browsers choosing the same visual rendering as yours (or even _having_ a visual rendering) is counter to the purpose of HTML. If you are preparing a document to be viewed only on your particular machine, OS, and browser, you will be better served by a format such as PDF or Microsloth Word, which are not portable, but promise that the viewer will see what you are seeing. > > If you want pixel > >level control and graphical consistency, use a graphical format such as > >TIFF or PDF. If you want platform independece and logical markup, use > >HTML. If you want HTML with some level of control of visual rendering, > >use HTML with CSS. > > Problem: Not everyone uses a browser that is CSS enabled. Sure, just like not everyone uses a browser which draws tables the same way yours does. The difference is that a correctly prepared document which uses CSS will work in the absence of CSS. Your method does not have this fallback. -- Jim Wise jim.wise@turner.com
Received on Thursday, 10 July 1997 17:03:08 UTC