RE: [#293] Summary for tables

Nice arrogant reply, very constructive. Again -- I want my documents
available, accessible and usable for almost all potential users, and sometimes
(although necessary to prevent this), (layout) tables are (or were) helpful, if
not even necessary (there were user-agents not able to properly render <div />

But if you're only that pseudo-expert having no practice at all, testing
your markup only in IE 6, you won't understand. I don't need any specification
advocate when this ain't serving former or current needs.

 Jens Meiert.

> Jens Meiert wrote:
> > Are tables (used for layout) really that bad...?
> Yup. They make the content less accessible, and they
> make it impossible for browser authors to implement
> functionality which could be *really* useful for tables,
> e.g. having the table header (<thead>) fixed while
> scrolling, or at the top of every page when printing,
> etc.
> Because tables are being abused to the great extent it
> is, one lacks a lot of neat table-functionality which
> could be implemented into browsers if tables were used
> for... *Tables*.
> > I really see Accessibility problems, but these would be
> > removed introducing the type attribute.
> No, the content will still be plunged into wrong tags and
> the content's (semantic) meaning won't be expressed
> correctly. Also, the content will be locked to a certain
> view which can't be altered in an easy way, neither by
> the user or by the page author.
> Yes, Opera's Small Page Rendering algorithm works ok, but
> it isn't perfect, and it's just a hack to make HTML work
> as *intended* although authors don't use it that way.
> Opera is buying authors time I don't think they deserve,
> and I think they really just are doing them a disservice.
> > Maybe XHTML 2 will us enable a 'new beginning' (e.g. not
> > needing layout tables anymore)
> We don't need layout tables with HTML 4.01 either. CSS does
> the magic. In fact, you can create something that visually
> looks like a table, but is just a bunch of <div>'s with
> 'display: table-cell' and the other table-centric display
> values on them.
> > but maybe (and IMO likely) it is necessary to use them later,
> > too, and an optional type attribute (for emergency cases,
> > if you want) offers an alternative.
> If you don't know how to create something similar to <table>
> with <div> and CSS, it isn't a flaw in the standard; it is
> you, lacking knowledge and experience.
> > In general, it would be useful -->now.
> But it's not necessary.
> > And I think it's not important when anything is
> > implemented properly by e.g. browser vendors, since it
> > is characteristic for the IT landscape that there are
> > many recommendations, specifications etc.
> There aren't many specifications for HTML. For earlier
> versions you have som ISO and W3C alternatives, but for
> the later versions, W3C is the origin and they only release
> one standard document per version. I don't see the problem.
> > you first have to wait until you can really and properly
> > use them (see the Java 1.4 introduction, or the buggy CSS 2
> > support, take what you want  -- often you have to pass on
> > possible features for maybe weeks, maybe years).
> It's often wise to wait, but you have to stay updated as well.
> Just compare Opera or Mozilla's CSS support to Internet
> Explorer's. It's obvious that Microsoft stopped the development
> of IE too early, and the CSS2 support of Opera and Mozilla is
> no longer buggy. Not at all.
> It takes time to support a standard the way it is intended,
> and it takes time for the standard to maturate with erratas
> and experiences in the market. But no one gains anything by
> just sitting on the fence waiting for the standard to be
> perfect.
> > -- Last but not least, my proposal was rather an idea how
> > the problem could have been solved quite earlier
> The problem is already solved. It's called CSS.
> -- 
> Asbjørn Ulsberg           -=|=-          X-No-Archive: No
> "He's a loathsome offensive brute, yet I can't look away"

Jens Meiert

Steubenstr. 28
D-26123 Oldenburg

Mobil +49 (0)175 78 4146 5
Telefon +49 (0)441 99 86 147
Telefax +49 (0)89 1488 2325 91

Mail <>
Internet <>

Received on Monday, 28 July 2003 07:33:13 UTC