Is the end of HTML as we know it?

[1001 Webs]

Re: Is the end of HTML as we know it?

On Nov 3, 5:37 pm, Bergamot <berga...@visi. comwrote:

1001 Webs wrote:
>

There's no reason to use tables any more.
Do you agree with that?

>
yawn
>
This is a boring subject that is only brought up by clueless, lazy
people that haven't bothered reading the newsgroup archives.

All depends on what newsgroup archives you bother to read, you know?

I don't.
But it could be that I'm not well versed on the intricacies of CSS ...

>
indeed

And I presume you certainly are?
Ain't you?

[Bergamot]

Re: Is the end of HTML as we know it?

1001 Webs wrote:

On Nov 3, 2:50 pm, "rf" <r...@invalid.c omwrote:

>>
>Sometimes the only way is to use a table.
>>
>One of those times is, of course, if one is offering up tabular data, which
>point you seem to have missed.

Tabular data cannot be displayed with CSS?

You could, but why would you want to? Tables are intended for tabular
data. Use the right markup for the job.

--
Berg

[Travis Newbury]

Re: Is the end of HTML as we know it?

On Nov 3, 2:09 pm, Jerry Stuckle <jstuck...@attg lobal.netwrote:

It's not a nightmare if you understand it.

True, but CSS != fluid design

And if you want something to
look *exactly* like you design it, create a PDF.

That is not true at all. While it may not look exactly the same on
100% of the visitors, you can design it to look the same on the
overwhelming majority of visitors. If it were not this way the
corporate world would be rushing to use fluid design. But they
aren't, they are using fixed width. Because that is what people want,
and that is what best suits the corporate world.

I'd prefer to have
fluid designs which adjust to the size of the user's window.

And the key to your statement is "I'd prefer...."

I prefer fixed width. So why is what I prefer wrong, and what you
prefer right?

It isn't. It is a preference. Neither of us is right or wrong.

[Bergamot]

Re: Is the end of HTML as we know it?

1001 Webs wrote:

On Nov 3, 5:37 pm, Bergamot <berga...@visi. comwrote:

>1001 Webs wrote:
>>

There's no reason to use tables any more.

>>
>This is a boring subject that is only brought up by clueless, lazy
>people that haven't bothered reading the newsgroup archives.

All depends on what newsgroup archives you bother to read, you know?

Hmmm... that just tells me you did little or no research on your own.

But it could be that I'm not well versed on the intricacies of CSS ...

>>
>indeed

And I presume you certainly are?

That isn't relevant, but based on what I've seen of your work, then I'm
a lot farther along than you. But instead of doing some learning on your
own to improve your own understanding, you decide to waste people's time
with the tired 'tables vs css' drivel.

--
Berg

[Ben C]

Re: Is the end of HTML as we know it?

On 2007-11-03, 1001 Webs <1001webs@gmail .comwrote:

On Nov 3, 2:50 pm, "rf" <r...@invalid.c omwrote:

>"1001 Webs" <1001w...@gmail .comwrote in message
>>
>news:119409694 4.823077.155460 @57g2000hsv.goo glegroups.com.. .
>>

Every respected Web-authoring Guru says that.
This is the era of table-less design, CSS code, XHTML compliant
websites.
Separate layout from content.

>>

There's no reason to use tables any more.
Everything can be done with CSS.
Tables are so 2002ish ...

>>

Do you agree with that?
I don't.
I've run into many situations where I just couldn't achieve the
desired effect in different browsers without using tables.

>>
>Sometimes the only way is to use a table. Sometimes. Only sometimes and only
>for a very small part of a page.
>>
>One of those times is, of course, if one is offering up tabular data, which
>point you seem to have missed.

Tabular data cannot be displayed with CSS?

Of course it can, and the default styles for <table>, <tr>, <tdetc.
will usually give you a good layout for your tabular data.

You can also use CSS to do tabular layouts of non-tabular data.

You can separate layout from content to your heart's content, and layout
your elements with display: table, display: table-row, display:
table-cell, etc., if you require table-layout behaviour, whether the
content is tabular or not.

It just isn't supported in the current version of IE. That's a
completely different issue though.

[1001 Webs]

Re: Is the end of HTML as we know it?

On Nov 3, 10:49 pm, Bergamot <berga...@visi. comwrote:

1001 Webs wrote:

On Nov 3, 5:37 pm, Bergamot <berga...@visi. comwrote:

1001 Webs wrote:

>

There's no reason to use tables any more.

>

This is a boring subject that is only brought up by clueless, lazy
people that haven't bothered reading the newsgroup archives.

All depends on what newsgroup archives you bother to read, you know?

>
Hmmm... that just tells me you did little or no research on your own.
>

But it could be that I'm not well versed on the intricacies of CSS ...

>

indeed

And I presume you certainly are?

>
That isn't relevant, but based on what I've seen of your work, then I'm
a lot farther along than you. But instead of doing some learning on your
own to improve your own understanding, you decide to waste people's time
with the tired 'tables vs css' drivel.

The poster just above you would surely disagree about the absoluteness
of that statement.
Which speaks a lot of both your ability to screen Newsgroups and to
understand the needs of today's web authoring.
I have done some learning on my own and what I learned is that is not
a unified criteria on this issue because of different browsers display
pages in different manners.
And I learned too that it does NOT happen when using tables.
In that sense I am long way before you.
Look around just a little and you'll find out for yourself. It's worth
the effort, believe me.

P.D.
Where the heck did my answer to:
"I disagree with anyone who agrees with any absolute statement. "
replied with:
"then you'll disagree with absolute positioning"
go?

[Red E. Kilowatt]

Re: Is the end of HTML as we know it?

Chaddy2222 <spamlovermailb ox-sicurity@yahoo. com.auwrote in message:
1194104947.5564 07.262420@z24g2 00...legr oups.com,

mic...@gmail.co m wrote:

>On Nov 3, 3:35 pm, 1001 Webs <1001w...@gmail .comwrote:

>>Every respected Web-authoring Guru says that.
>>This is the era of table-less design, CSS code, XHTML compliant
>>websites.
>>Separate layout from content.
>>>
>>There's no reason to use tables any more.
>>Everything can be done with CSS.
>>Tables are so 2002ish ...
>>>
>>Do you agree with that?
>>I don't.
>>I've run into many situations where I just couldn't achieve the
>>desired effect in different browsers without using tables.
>>But it could be that I'm not well versed on the intricacies of CSS
>>...

>>
>Tables are the easiest
>If you need something simple use tables

That's not true. CSS is simple and more powerfull then layout tables.

Simple for you, maybe. I find CSS incomprehensibl e for anything beyond
specifying fonts and backgrounds, like trying to position boxes within
an overall layout.

And honestly, I don't want to learn, because as far as I'm concerned
tables work fine. Granted, improving the text to mark-up ratio on my
sites would probably help their search engine ranking slightly, but I'd
rather send my time figuring out new ways to make money.

--
Red

[Adrienne Boswell]

Re: Is the end of HTML as we know it?

Gazing into my crystal ball I observed "Jonathan N. Little"
<lws4art@centra lva.netwriting in news:7b1b4$472c 9f47$40cba7c4$2 1950
@NAXS.COM:

mic123@gmail.co m wrote:

>On Nov 3, 3:35 pm, 1001 Webs <1001w...@gmail .comwrote:

>>Every respected Web-authoring Guru says that.
>>This is the era of table-less design, CSS code, XHTML compliant
>>websites.
>>Separate layout from content.
>>>
>>There's no reason to use tables any more.
>>Everything can be done with CSS.
>>Tables are so 2002ish ...
>>>
>>Do you agree with that?
>>I don't.
>>I've run into many situations where I just couldn't achieve the
>>desired effect in different browsers without using tables.
>>But it could be that I'm not well versed on the intricacies of CSS

....

>>
>Tables are the easiest
>If you need something simple use tables
>>

>
See if you feel that way after editing a site with a half dozen nested
tables with row and column spans...
>

Yes, without going into the HTML, and having the server write a lot of
javascript href="javascrip t('somethingbad ')"

I inherited that nightmare a few years ago, all gone now.

--
Adrienne Boswell at Home
Arbpen Web Site Design Services

http://www.cavalcade-of-coding.info

Please respond to the group so others can share

[Jerry Stuckle]

Re: Is the end of HTML as we know it?

Travis Newbury wrote:

On Nov 3, 2:09 pm, Jerry Stuckle <jstuck...@attg lobal.netwrote:

>It's not a nightmare if you understand it.

True, but CSS != fluid design
>

That's not the point. CSS CAN be fluid design. Tables cannot really be
fluid.

>And if you want something to
>look *exactly* like you design it, create a PDF.

>
That is not true at all. While it may not look exactly the same on
100% of the visitors, you can design it to look the same on the
overwhelming majority of visitors. If it were not this way the
corporate world would be rushing to use fluid design. But they
aren't, they are using fixed width. Because that is what people want,
and that is what best suits the corporate world.
>

Read what I said. Then respond with some intelligence.

If it doesn't look "exactly the same on 100% of the visitors", it isn't
exactly the same, is it?

>I'd prefer to have
>fluid designs which adjust to the size of the user's window.

>
And the key to your statement is "I'd prefer...."
>

Not at all. Any *competent* webmaster would be able to do such.

I prefer fixed width. So why is what I prefer wrong, and what you
prefer right?
>

So do most graphic designers I know. And that's fine for a piece of
paper. But it's shows complete incompetence on the web, which is a
fluid layout.

It isn't. It is a preference. Neither of us is right or wrong.
>
>

It is a lack of competence on your part.

--
=============== ===
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.
jstucklex@attgl obal.net
=============== ===

[Jonathan N. Little]

Re: Is the end of HTML as we know it?

1001 Webs wrote:

P.D.
Where the heck did my answer to:
"I disagree with anyone who agrees with any absolute statement. "
replied with:
"then you'll disagree with absolute positioning"
go?
>

Just further down the tread. The shortcomings of *not* using a real
newsreader.

--
Take care,

Jonathan
-------------------
LITTLE WORKS STUDIO

http://www.LittleWorksStudio.com

[dorayme]

Re: Is the end of HTML as we know it?

In article <nIadnR_KOZMCgL DanZ2dnUVZ_v2pn Z2d@comcast.com >,
Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attg lobal.netwrote:

Tables cannot really be
fluid.

You have said this twice now but have not indicated what you
mean. A table of tabular data can be very fluid or it can be not
very fluid (because of poor design and the use of fixed widths
etc). So what does it mean to say "cannot be really fluid"?

--
dorayme

[Jerry Stuckle]

Re: Is the end of HTML as we know it?

dorayme wrote:

In article <nIadnR_KOZMCgL DanZ2dnUVZ_v2pn Z2d@comcast.com >,
Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attg lobal.netwrote:
>

>Tables cannot really be
>fluid.

>
You have said this twice now but have not indicated what you
mean. A table of tabular data can be very fluid or it can be not
very fluid (because of poor design and the use of fixed widths
etc). So what does it mean to say "cannot be really fluid"?
>

Let's see you wrap data in a table around a picture, for instance.

--
=============== ===
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.
jstucklex@attgl obal.net
=============== ===

[Jim Moe]

Re: Is the end of HTML as we know it?

On 11/03/07 06:35 am, 1001 Webs wrote:

Every respected Web-authoring Guru says that.
This is the era of table-less design, CSS code, XHTML compliant
websites.
Separate layout from content.
>
Do you agree with that?
I don't.
>

Troll.

--
jmm (hyphen) list (at) sohnen-moe (dot) com
(Remove .AXSPAMGN for email)

[Chaddy2222]

Re: Is the end of HTML as we know it?


Haines Brown wrote:

Chaddy2222 <spamlovermailb ox-sicurity@yahoo. com.auwrites:
>

Tables are the easiest
If you need something simple use tables

>

That's not true. CSS is simple and more powerfull then layout tables.
As an example check out this template I made.
http://freewebdesign.awardspace.biz/temp/template.html

>
While I agree with you that CSS adequately provides for layout, your
example not impressive.
>
On my browsers (galeon, iceweasel), there were anamolies. The left
panel is shifted down about 0.5em from the right panel. That is, there
is a yellow space between it and the "header", which the right panel
lacks. As a result, not only is there a perhaps undesired yellow space
below the left panel and the footer that is wider than that below the
right panel.
>

That's due to the different colour on the body showing through.

Apparently it is the result of using the KompoZer utility, and it does
not speak much for it. The stylesheet looks confused (the navbar div
seems to be within the header div). As a template, should not the
margins be omitted, or at least set ot defaults?
>

It was a template I developed for my own sites.
http://freewebdesign.awardspace.biz now is useing it.
It should look a lot better as I changed a lot of things in the CSS.
--
Regards Chad.

[Harlan Messinger]

Re: Is the end of HTML as we know it?

1001 Webs wrote:

On Nov 3, 3:49 pm, Harlan Messinger
<hmessinger.rem ovet...@comcast .netwrote:

>1001 Webs wrote:

>>Every respected Web-authoring Guru says that.

>Really?
>>

>>This is the era of table-less design, CSS code, XHTML compliant
>>websites.
>>Separate layout from content.

>And guess what the content is marked up with? (Hint: HTML.) So either
>you or whoever's prognostication s you're reading is confused.

W3 recommends the use of CSS

You are misunderstandin g this. W3 recommends the use of CSS for
*presentation*. Without content marked up with HTML *to apply the CSS
to*, there is no web page.