- From: Emrah BASKAYA <emrahbaskaya@hesido.com>
- Date: Thu, 07 Apr 2005 02:53:51 +0300
- To: www-style@w3.org
On Wed, 6 Apr 2005 15:14:30 -0700, Mark Moore <mark.moore@notlimited.com> wrote: .... > There are really three distinct concepts that need to be separated, not > two: > Content, Layout, and Style. Very good point. .... > The clue for me is whenever it's necessary to change the underlying > XML/XHTML/HTML to yield the required rendering, and that change cannot be > justified by the content alone. This is just as bad a conceptual > breakdown > as using tables for layout instead of tabular data, I totally agree with you. > but is more difficult to recognize. And, so it's easy to overlook. In addition to your points, I'll say that CSS lacking that layout power is one of the reasons it is still not adopted for layout by many webmasters. They indeed use CSS to style their tables and text, and this is enough for them, as they can do their 2-3 coloumn liquid layouts with relative ease, they don't have to fight with the box-model differences out there (which is indeed solvable, but tell it to them) etc. And all the CSS only layouts for imitating the tabled layouts do contain styling markup (extra covering divs for grouping etc). Which is, like you say, just as bad as using tables for layout. You wind up changing the markup for design changes (layout changes) in the current model. If CSS is given more power, its adoption rate by the webmasters for layout will sky-rocket once the market is flooded with CSS3 enabled browsers. If this fundemental feature is not accepted in the final CSS3, it will be another 10 years of style markup experience for us (until it is implemented in CSS4 and market is flooded with CSS4 browsers) -- Emrah BASKAYA www.hesido.com
Received on Wednesday, 6 April 2005 23:53:57 UTC