Is the end of HTML as we know it?

[dorayme]

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

In article <4uCdnaAAs5pvqL DanZ2dnUVZ_qXin Z2d@comcast.com >,
Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attg lobal.netwrote:

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.

Data? Around a picture? In a table? What will it prove to show
text flowing around a pic in a table cell? If I can show you a
table with a cell that has a pic in it with text flowing around
it, will you then give up saying that "tables cannot really be
fluid"? Are you just going to use the word "really" as a licence
never to revise your statement and just keep hinting at its truth
instead of enlarging on it so that what *you* mean is clearer?

Just for the record, I do not think it is a good idea in general
these days to be using tables for making new pages (using them
for tabular data is another matter of course).

--
dorayme

[Bergamot]

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

1001 Webs wrote:

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

>>
>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

See http://improve-usenet.org/

Which speaks a lot of both your ability to screen Newsgroups and to
understand the needs of today's web authoring.

LOL. That is indeed funny. The "today's web authoring" you seem to be
talking about is many years old. Where have you been all this time?

In that sense I am long way before you.

You presume much, I think.

Look around just a little and you'll find out for yourself. It's worth
the effort, believe me.

What makes you think I'm as green as you are? Believe me, I'm not.

--
Berg

[Jerry Stuckle]

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

dorayme wrote:

In article <4uCdnaAAs5pvqL DanZ2dnUVZ_qXin Z2d@comcast.com >,
Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attg lobal.netwrote:
>

>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.

>
Data? Around a picture? In a table? What will it prove to show
text flowing around a pic in a table cell? If I can show you a
table with a cell that has a pic in it with text flowing around
it, will you then give up saying that "tables cannot really be
fluid"? Are you just going to use the word "really" as a licence
never to revise your statement and just keep hinting at its truth
instead of enlarging on it so that what *you* mean is clearer?
>
Just for the record, I do not think it is a good idea in general
these days to be using tables for making new pages (using them
for tabular data is another matter of course).
>

Just for the record - you asked for an example. I gave you one. There
are dozens more.

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

[dorayme]

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

In article <hf2dnY16g4LT_L PanZ2dnUVZ_jadn Z2d@comcast.com >,
Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attg lobal.netwrote:

dorayme wrote:

In article <4uCdnaAAs5pvqL DanZ2dnUVZ_qXin Z2d@comcast.com >,
Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attg lobal.netwrote:

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.

Data? Around a picture? In a table? What will it prove to show
text flowing around a pic in a table cell? If I can show you a
table with a cell that has a pic in it with text flowing around
it, will you then give up saying that "tables cannot really be
fluid"? Are you just going to use the word "really" as a licence
never to revise your statement and just keep hinting at its truth
instead of enlarging on it so that what *you* mean is clearer?

Just for the record, I do not think it is a good idea in general
these days to be using tables for making new pages (using them
for tabular data is another matter of course).

>
Just for the record - you asked for an example. I gave you one. There
are dozens more.

First, I did not ask 'for an example'. Second, where is the
example you claim to have given? And what exactly is it an
example of? And you have not answered the question I asked you
about what it would prove if *I* gave *you* a table with a cell
that had a picture with text wrapped around.

Look, I am not interested if you are merely saying something that
is somehow supposed to be a placeholder for all the pros of
semantic markup and good css styling. Even if you could rub a few
words together and do this, you would be preaching to the
converted. You made a claim that tables cannot be "really fluid"
and I was merely asking what *you* meant by this. I can think of
a few meanings, some of which support your claim and some not.

--
dorayme

[Jerry Stuckle]

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

dorayme wrote:

In article <hf2dnY16g4LT_L PanZ2dnUVZ_jadn Z2d@comcast.com >,
Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attg lobal.netwrote:
>

>dorayme wrote:

>>In article <4uCdnaAAs5pvqL DanZ2dnUVZ_qXin Z2d@comcast.com >,
>> Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attg lobal.netwrote:
>>>
>>>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.
>>Data? Around a picture? In a table? What will it prove to show
>>text flowing around a pic in a table cell? If I can show you a
>>table with a cell that has a pic in it with text flowing around
>>it, will you then give up saying that "tables cannot really be
>>fluid"? Are you just going to use the word "really" as a licence
>>never to revise your statement and just keep hinting at its truth
>>instead of enlarging on it so that what *you* mean is clearer?
>>>
>>Just for the record, I do not think it is a good idea in general
>>these days to be using tables for making new pages (using them
>>for tabular data is another matter of course).
>>>

>Just for the record - you asked for an example. I gave you one. There
>are dozens more.

>
First, I did not ask 'for an example'. Second, where is the
example you claim to have given? And what exactly is it an
example of? And you have not answered the question I asked you
about what it would prove if *I* gave *you* a table with a cell
that had a picture with text wrapped around.
>
Look, I am not interested if you are merely saying something that
is somehow supposed to be a placeholder for all the pros of
semantic markup and good css styling. Even if you could rub a few
words together and do this, you would be preaching to the
converted. You made a claim that tables cannot be "really fluid"
and I was merely asking what *you* meant by this. I can think of
a few meanings, some of which support your claim and some not.
>

You wanted to know what I mean when I say a table can't be fluid. I
gave you an example.

Let's see you wrap text around am image using tables and NO CSS. The
page must adjust to any reasonably sized window and text size (i.e. not
72 point font as the default, and not a 20x20 px window), flowing as
necessary to fill the window and continue to wrap around the picture.

Such is simple in CSS.

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

[dorayme]

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

In article <8bGdnRMn5MqA8b PanZ2dnUVZ_jmdn Z2d@comcast.com >,
Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attg lobal.netwrote:

You wanted to know what I mean when I say a table can't be fluid. I
gave you an example.

Look, it seems that we are on different wavelengths here. In my
understanding, an example of something that cannot exist cannot
be given. So why don't you be a little more precise in your words
and thoughts. It does no good endlessly repeating your same very
few words.

I have in mind that you may have some misconceptions, that you
are rolling a whole lot of concepts into the idea of fluid and it
is you who should be sorting all this out, considering it is you
who is making the big claim. Table based layout can easily be
user friendly in respect to using the size of the screen. A
simple example is a 100% wide table that has 2 columns, one that
is enough to hold a navigation list, the other for all the
content. That is a table layout. It is plenty fluid in many
senses of the word. Naturally, if you are meaning that a table
layout cannot involve css or em based or % dimensioning and has
to involve tables within tables and whatever then you are putting
up a straw man. That discussion is long dead.

--
dorayme

[Jonathan N. Little]

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

Sherman Pendley wrote:

1001 Webs <1001webs@gmail .comwrites:
>

>And finally, I declare this thread officially closed.

>
You declare that, do you? Who died and made you King of Usenet?

GG attracts all kinds, even the delusional.

--
Take care,

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

http://www.LittleWorksStudio.com

[Jerry Stuckle]

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

dorayme wrote:

In article <8bGdnRMn5MqA8b PanZ2dnUVZ_jmdn Z2d@comcast.com >,
Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attg lobal.netwrote:
>

>You wanted to know what I mean when I say a table can't be fluid. I
>gave you an example.

>
Look, it seems that we are on different wavelengths here. In my
understanding, an example of something that cannot exist cannot
be given. So why don't you be a little more precise in your words
and thoughts. It does no good endlessly repeating your same very
few words.
>

No, I gave you an example of a fluid design which can be easily
accomplished in CSS, but not with tables.

I have in mind that you may have some misconceptions, that you
are rolling a whole lot of concepts into the idea of fluid and it
is you who should be sorting all this out, considering it is you
who is making the big claim. Table based layout can easily be
user friendly in respect to using the size of the screen. A
simple example is a 100% wide table that has 2 columns, one that
is enough to hold a navigation list, the other for all the
content. That is a table layout. It is plenty fluid in many
senses of the word. Naturally, if you are meaning that a table
layout cannot involve css or em based or % dimensioning and has
to involve tables within tables and whatever then you are putting
up a straw man. That discussion is long dead.
>

No, I'm not. Fluid design is much more than setting a table to 100%
width of the window. That concept is from the 90's.

Nowadays fluid layouts can adjust to text size, window size. Content
isn't limited to just the two columns you mention - in fact, content can
wrap around the navigation area. Images in the window can have text
wrapped around them. And a whole bunch more that goes into a true fluid
design.

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

[dorayme]

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

In article <_Nydne-56YkiCbPanZ2dnU VZ_hSdnZ2d@comc ast.com>,
Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attg lobal.netwrote:

dorayme wrote:

In article <8bGdnRMn5MqA8b PanZ2dnUVZ_jmdn Z2d@comcast.com >,
Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attg lobal.netwrote:

You wanted to know what I mean when I say a table can't be fluid. I
gave you an example.

Look, it seems that we are on different wavelengths here. In my
understanding, an example of something that cannot exist cannot
be given. So why don't you be a little more precise in your words
and thoughts. It does no good endlessly repeating your same very
few words.

>
No, I gave you an example of a fluid design which can be easily
accomplished in CSS, but not with tables.
>

You *gave* no such thing. You asked me to wrap data around a
picture (whatever that means and it could mean a whole bunch of
things). That is not giving a fluid design.

I have in mind that you may have some misconceptions, that you
are rolling a whole lot of concepts into the idea of fluid and it
is you who should be sorting all this out, considering it is you
who is making the big claim. Table based layout can easily be
user friendly in respect to using the size of the screen. A
simple example is a 100% wide table that has 2 columns, one that
is enough to hold a navigation list, the other for all the
content. That is a table layout. It is plenty fluid in many
senses of the word. Naturally, if you are meaning that a table
layout cannot involve css or em based or % dimensioning and has
to involve tables within tables and whatever then you are putting
up a straw man. That discussion is long dead.

>
No, I'm not.

No you are not what?

>Fluid design is much more than setting a table to 100%
width of the window. That concept is from the 90's.
>

And who suggested any such thing? Not me.

Nowadays fluid layouts can adjust to text size, window size. Content
isn't limited to just the two columns you mention - in fact, content can
wrap around the navigation area. Images in the window can have text
wrapped around them. And a whole bunch more that goes into a true fluid
design.

You are now just babbling trendy talk and being totally
imprecise.

--
dorayme

[Jerry Stuckle]

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

dorayme wrote:

In article <_Nydne-56YkiCbPanZ2dnU VZ_hSdnZ2d@comc ast.com>,
Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attg lobal.netwrote:
>

>dorayme wrote:

>>In article <8bGdnRMn5MqA8b PanZ2dnUVZ_jmdn Z2d@comcast.com >,
>> Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attg lobal.netwrote:
>>>
>>>You wanted to know what I mean when I say a table can't be fluid. I
>>>gave you an example.
>>Look, it seems that we are on different wavelengths here. In my
>>understanding , an example of something that cannot exist cannot
>>be given. So why don't you be a little more precise in your words
>>and thoughts. It does no good endlessly repeating your same very
>>few words.
>>>

>No, I gave you an example of a fluid design which can be easily
>accomplished in CSS, but not with tables.
>>

>
You *gave* no such thing. You asked me to wrap data around a
picture (whatever that means and it could mean a whole bunch of
things). That is not giving a fluid design.
>
>

>>I have in mind that you may have some misconceptions, that you
>>are rolling a whole lot of concepts into the idea of fluid and it
>>is you who should be sorting all this out, considering it is you
>>who is making the big claim. Table based layout can easily be
>>user friendly in respect to using the size of the screen. A
>>simple example is a 100% wide table that has 2 columns, one that
>>is enough to hold a navigation list, the other for all the
>>content. That is a table layout. It is plenty fluid in many
>>senses of the word. Naturally, if you are meaning that a table
>>layout cannot involve css or em based or % dimensioning and has
>>to involve tables within tables and whatever then you are putting
>>up a straw man. That discussion is long dead.
>>>

>No, I'm not.

>
No you are not what?
>
>

>Fluid design is much more than setting a table to 100%
>width of the window. That concept is from the 90's.
>>

>
And who suggested any such thing? Not me.
>

>Nowadays fluid layouts can adjust to text size, window size. Content
>isn't limited to just the two columns you mention - in fact, content can
>wrap around the navigation area. Images in the window can have text
>wrapped around them. And a whole bunch more that goes into a true fluid
>design.

>
You are now just babbling trendy talk and being totally
imprecise.
>

Nope, you're just trying to change the subject, turning it away from
questions you can't answer. You try to evade the challenge rather than
admit you can't do it with your precious tables.

I've finally come to the conclusion you're just a stoopid troll.

<plonk>


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

[Travis Newbury]

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

On Nov 3, 8:16 pm, Jerry Stuckle <jstuck...@attg lobal.netwrote:

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

So what, sites do not have to be fluid.

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?

100% the same is irrelevant in the big picture. That is my point.

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.

In your opinion.

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.

In your opinion...

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

It is a lack of competence on your part.

Funny, I see it the opposite.

[Travis Newbury]

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

On Nov 4, 7:17 pm, Jerry Stuckle <jstuck...@attg lobal.netwrote:

Just for the record - you asked for an example. I gave you one. There
are dozens more.

Oh are you going to do that "Look for it your self" thing again?

[Jerry Stuckle]

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

Travis Newbury wrote:

On Nov 3, 8:16 pm, Jerry Stuckle <jstuck...@attg lobal.netwrote:

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

>
So what, sites do not have to be fluid.
>

>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?

>
100% the same is irrelevant in the big picture. That is my point.
>

>>>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.

>
In your opinion.
>

>>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.

>
In your opinion...
>

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

>It is a lack of competence on your part.

>
Funny, I see it the opposite.
>
>

Yep, and obviously you're completely incompetent. You've already proven
that multiple times.

No go troll someplace else.

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

[Travis Newbury]

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

On Nov 4, 8:51 pm, dorayme <doraymeRidT... @optusnet.com.a uwrote:

You wanted to know what I mean when I say a table can't be fluid. I
gave you an example.

Look, it seems that we are on different wavelengths here.

I believe Jerry just likes to pick fights. You are wasting your time
here Jerry is a closed minded buffoon. He fears what he does not
understand

[Travis Newbury]

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

On Nov 4, 8:03 pm, Jerry Stuckle <jstuck...@attg lobal.netwrote:

You wanted to know what I mean when I say a table can't be fluid. I
gave you an example.
Let's see you wrap text around am image using tables and NO CSS.

Why no CSS? CSS and tables are not mutually exclusive. Only a buffoon
would think otherwise...