CSS Experts:

OK, I'm a stupid newby. Now, here's the question:

Can CSS replace slightly complicated Tables and work in three
browsers (e.g. MSIE 6.0, Net 7.1, Op 7.03) ?

After countless attempts I've concluded "no".

Thank you,

Mason C

( not pertinent; for identification only: http://masonc.home.netcom.com )

On Wed, 14 Jan 2004 21:30:56 GMT, Mason A. Clark
<masoncNOT@THISix.netcom.comQ> wrote:
[color=blue]
> Can CSS replace slightly complicated Tables and work in three
> browsers (e.g. MSIE 6.0, Net 7.1, Op 7.03) ?
>
> After countless attempts I've concluded "no".[/color]

If it's a true table, with tabular data, use the table.

Depends on how you define "slightly complicated". Care to offer a URL to a
table design you would like to convert?

And BTW, it's a little like asking where you can find legal adult workers
who will give you comparable production as cheaply as you can employ child
slave labor. Obviously there are going to be layouts possible through the
misuse of table markup which aren't going to be easily replicated using
CSS. As CSS develops, I think you'll see more and more possible.

Mason A. Clark <masoncNOT@THISix.netcom.comQ> wrote:
[color=blue]
>CSS Experts:
>
>OK, I'm a stupid newby. Now, here's the question:
>
>Can CSS replace slightly complicated Tables and work in three
>browsers (e.g. MSIE 6.0, Net 7.1, Op 7.03) ?
>
>After countless attempts I've concluded "no".[/color]

IE does not support CSS tables. Note that CSS tables are to be used for
layout, not to replace regular tables.

--
Spartanicus

On Wed, 14 Jan 2004, Mason A. Clark wrote:
[color=blue]
> Can CSS replace slightly complicated Tables and work in three
> browsers (e.g. MSIE 6.0, Net 7.1, Op 7.03) ?[/color]

Unclear. If I'm feeling generous, I think you're asking "can CSS be
used to do page layout, instead of (mis)using tables?", to which I
would answer "yes" with reasonable confidence. But, taking into
account the browsers that are out there, you have to be flexible and
pragmatic, and occasionally make significant compromises.

If I'm not so generous, then I worry that you have some misguided
notion of replacing tabular data by some kind of CSS positioning, to
which I would reply "don't do that".
[color=blue]
> After countless attempts I've concluded "no".[/color]

We also probably need to understand how you interpret the term
"works". For me, a web page "works" when it adapts calmly and without
fuss to a wide range of presentation situations; it should also,
naturally, be visually attractive in at least the mainstream browsing
situation, but no end-users are going to award points for pixel-exact
identity of the presentation in different browsers - that
interpretation of "works" is quite likely to be counterproductive in
my opinion.

It's my impression that you get much better results if you learn the
various aspects of stylesheet design from the ground up, so that you
can work with them confidently in their own terms, without any
reference to previous HTML3.2-ish techniques.

Once you've made the mistake of setting yourself the explicit target
of "replacing" some deprecated thing by some new replacement, you've
made the problem extra difficult by introducing unnecessary
constraints and compromises. After gaining a confident working
knowledge of the available features, it then becomes easier to solve
such an artificial task; but at the beginning it's better to work with
CSS page designs in their own right, rather than as some kind of
substitute for something that was inferior in the fundamental sense.
At any rate, that's my advice - worth at least what you paid for it
;-)

Until then, just toss out all the old layout markup, keep the content
and any structurally-significant markup that it may have, and start
designing from first principles of separating content from
presentation.
[color=blue]
> ( not pertinent; for identification only: http://masonc.home.netcom.com )[/color]

You might get better advice from the participants on this group if you
were willing to actually post an example, though.

good luck

On Wed, 14 Jan 2004 16:47:50 -0500, Neal <neal413@spamrcn.com> wrote:
[color=blue]
>Depends on how you define "slightly complicated". Care to offer a URL to a
>table design you would like to convert?[/color]

http://home.earthlink.net/~frontal-l...ntentscss.html

is a simple *exercise*. Ignore the content and links.

<table<tr><td> etc works fine for this. But this CSS version does not.
These five boxes do not position in Netscape or Opera. I've tried countless
combinations of margins, width, etc. (again: this is only an exercise)

My project is a Javascript Dhtml "quiz" of considerable complexity and
working very well. I'd like to use styles for its layout. I won't post it
because its other complexities would obscure my question.

I looked at www.w3c.org uses CSS. If I hit the refresh button, F5, the
layout breaks up. (It's ok to hit Enter.) I conclude from this and
other observations that CSS pages have less stability (re different
browsers, key thumping) than table layouts.

Hey, thanks for the quick responses.

Mason C

On Thu, 15 Jan 2004 00:58:58 GMT, Mason A. Clark
<masoncNOT@THISix.netcom.comQ> wrote:
[color=blue]
> On Wed, 14 Jan 2004 16:47:50 -0500, Neal <neal413@spamrcn.com> wrote:
>[color=green]
>> Depends on how you define "slightly complicated". Care to offer a URL
>> to a
>> table design you would like to convert?[/color]
>
> http://home.earthlink.net/~frontal-l...ntentscss.html
>
> is a simple *exercise*. Ignore the content and links.
>
> <table<tr><td> etc works fine for this. But this CSS version does not.
> These five boxes do not position in Netscape or Opera.[/color]

Ok. Right off the top.

#upLeft { display: block; border: 2px solid red; width="48%"; height=330;
margin-top=12; margin-left=5%; padding=11px; background-color=#FFFFDD; }

You're mixing up HTML and CSS. No = signs. No quotes. No numbers without a
measurement unless they're 0. Check out the correct CSS.

#upLeft { display: block; border: 2px solid red; width:48%; height:330px;
margin-top:12px; margin-left:5%; padding:11px; background-color:#FFFFDD; }

IE will fix a lot of errors that Opera and Mozilla/Netscape won't. Fix all
your styles to be correct CSS, and try it then.

Neal wrote:[color=blue]
>
> IE will fix a lot of errors that Opera and Mozilla/Netscape won't.
> Fix all your styles to be correct CSS, and try it then.[/color]

Just a clarification on the above: IE will *ignore*, not fix errors,
displaying them as it "thinks" they should look.

Also, keep in mind that IE is extremely buggy when it comes to CSS and has
very lacking support of CSS2. When you design for Gecko (Mozilla, Netscape),
you can basically use straightforward CSS2; to emulate the same layout for
IE, in many cases you will need to use hacks. And not to mention the
terrible problem concerning widths in IE5 and IE6 (see
http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/en...ancements.asp).

Berislav

Spartanicus wrote:
[color=blue]
> IE does not support CSS tables. Note that CSS tables are to be used for
> layout, not to replace regular tables.
>[/color]

In HTML (and still, browsers are using it: "table{display:table;}").

--
Anne van Kesteren
<http://www.annevankesteren.nl/>

Anne van Kesteren <mail@annevankesteren.nl> wrote:
[color=blue][color=green]
>> IE does not support CSS tables. Note that CSS tables are to be used for
>> layout, not to replace regular tables.[/color]
>
>In HTML (and still, browsers are using it: "table{display:table;}").[/color]

What are you talking about?

--
Spartanicus

"Alan J. Flavell" <flavell@ph.gla.ac.uk> wrote in message news:<Pine.LNX.4.53.0401142150410.26815@ppepc56.ph .gla.ac.uk>...[color=blue]
> On Wed, 14 Jan 2004, Mason A. Clark wrote:
>[color=green]
> > ( not pertinent; for identification only: http://masonc.home.netcom.com )[/color]
>
> You might get better advice from the participants on this group if you
> were willing to actually post an example, though.
>[/color]

Which he did.

http://home.earthlink.net/~frontal-l...ntentscss.html

EC
..

Spartanicus wrote:[color=blue]
> Anne van Kesteren <mail@annevankesteren.nl> wrote:
>
>[color=green][color=darkred]
>>>IE does not support CSS tables. Note that CSS tables are to be used for
>>>layout, not to replace regular tables.[/color]
>>
>>In HTML (and still, browsers are using it: "table{display:table;}").[/color]
>
>
> What are you talking about?
>[/color]

In XML CSS tables have to be used to replace regular tables.

In HTML that is not the case, though UA will have it in their 'ua.css'
file for displaying the HTML correctly.

--
Anne van Kesteren
<http://www.annevankesteren.nl/>

Mason A. Clark wrote:[color=blue]
>
> Can CSS replace slightly complicated Tables[/color]

Strictly speaking, no. CSS does not replace tables, nor any other
element. The table element (and its descendents tr td etc) is used to
mark up tabular data. CSS is used to suggest presentation of
structured documents in various media.

--
Brian
follow the directions in my address to email me

Anne van Kesteren wrote:[color=blue]
> Spartanicus wrote:[color=green]
>> Anne van Kesteren <mail@annevankesteren.nl> wrote:
>>[color=darkred]
>>>>IE does not support CSS tables. Note that CSS tables are to be used
>>>>for layout, not to replace regular tables.
>>>
>>>In HTML (and still, browsers are using it: "table{display:table;}").[/color]
>>
>> What are you talking about?[/color]
>
> In XML CSS tables have to be used to replace regular tables.[/color]
[snip]

I'm puzzled. That doesn't carry through to XHTML, does it? There is table
mark-up in 1.0 and 1.1, and in the Tables Module of 2.0.

Are you saying that there are not many attributes available in the 2.0
mark-up? (True, and good). Or were you not talking about XHTML at all?

--
Barry Pearson
http://www.Barry.Pearson.name/photography/
http://www.BirdsAndAnimals.info/
http://www.ChildSupportAnalysis.co.uk/

Mason A. Clark wrote:[color=blue]
>
> I looked at www.w3c.org uses CSS. If I hit the refresh button, F5, the
> layout breaks up.[/color]

I cannot replicate the problem you describe.
[color=blue]
> (It's ok to hit Enter.)[/color]

I cannot figure out what you mean here.
[color=blue]
> I conclude from this and other observations[/color]

What "other observations?"
[color=blue]
> that CSS pages have less stability[/color]

I have not observed that. Could you provide example uris? And details
about what exactly "breaks up," or how it fails, would be nice.
[color=blue]
> (re different browsers,[/color]

Different browsers present structural documents in different ways, as
was intended.
[color=blue]
> key thumping)[/color]

"key thumping?"
[color=blue]
> than table layouts.[/color]

tables are for tabular data. But you knew that already.

--
Brian
follow the directions in my address to email me

Barry Pearson wrote:[color=blue]
> Or were you not talking about XHTML at all?[/color]

Correct.

--
Anne van Kesteren
<http://www.annevankesteren.nl/>

On Thu, 15 Jan 2004, Brian wrote:
[color=blue]
> Mason A. Clark wrote:[color=green]
> >
> > I looked at www.w3c.org uses CSS. If I hit the refresh button, F5, the
> > layout breaks up.[/color]
>
> I cannot replicate the problem you describe.[/color]

As a point of information, IE sends different Accept: strings for an
initial request than for a reload. So if the server implements
content negotiation, it's possible to get a different document variant
on a reload than what one got initially.

However, that wasn't the cause of the problem that I experienced with
one page which fell about when reloaded. See the "content-type saga"
for more detail (the subheading that mentions Big5):

http://ppewww.ph.gla.ac.uk/~flavell/...tent-type.html

Sure, I've no idea whether either of those causes have any relevance
to the hon. usenaut's vague allegations.

Alan J. Flavell wrote:[color=blue]
>
> As a point of information, IE sends different Accept: strings for an
> initial request than for a reload. So if the server implements
> content negotiation, it's possible to get a different document variant
> on a reload than what one got initially.[/color]

Ah hah! That explains some (but not all) of the strange behavior I
noticed with IE 5/Win and a site I've developed. In fact, I just
posted a message in ciwa.site-design about it.
message id: 5gANb.59856$Rc4.216190@attbi_s54

Do you know why the accept header changes on reload?

--
Brian
follow the directions in my address to email me

Anne van Kesteren <mail@annevankesteren.nl> wrote:
[color=blue][color=green][color=darkred]
>>>>IE does not support CSS tables. Note that CSS tables are to be used for
>>>>layout, not to replace regular tables.
>>>
>>>In HTML (and still, browsers are using it: "table{display:table;}").[/color]
>>
>> What are you talking about?[/color]
>
>In XML CSS tables have to be used to replace regular tables.[/color]

XML doesn't have semantic elements. No tables: nothing to replace.

--
Spartanicus

Spartanicus wrote:[color=blue]
> XML doesn't have semantic elements. No tables: nothing to replace.
>[/color]

I'm sorry, I said that whole wrong. What I meant that in an XML document
that is not equal to XHTML or any other 'by the browser prestyled'
language you can have data that you want to format is a normal table.

You will need CSS tables for that. The specification gives some examples
of that: <http://www.w3.org/TR/CSS21/tables.html#anonymous-boxes>


--
Anne van Kesteren
<http://www.annevankesteren.nl/>

Anne van Kesteren <mail@annevankesteren.nl> wrote:
[color=blue]
>You will need CSS tables for that. The specification gives some examples
>of that: <http://www.w3.org/TR/CSS21/tables.html#anonymous-boxes>[/color]

I don't see why XML should be dragged into this thread (it's an XML
example).

But I misread the OP's question, he wasn't asking about CSS tables, Alan
read it right; the OP is simply struggling to replace a conventional
table layout with a CSS one.

--
Spartanicus

I'm going to thank all of you for your comments. I am now less "newbie" and
making progress on a css layout working in MSIE, Netscape, Opera. (Opera's
javascript is another matter.)

My web site layout currently uses <table><tr><td> etc. I'm wondering why
I am reading "tables *misused* for layout" -- they seem to have worked
without complaint for several years (css didn't exist :-).

The tables behave well. I suspect that css boxes will be nervous nellies.

Thanks again -- I'll now exit to newbie land -- bye bye

Mason C

PS: The W3C.ORG page layout "broke up" on F5 reload in MSIE by the center
"News" column dropping below the left column.

<HR>-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

On Wed, 14 Jan 2004 21:30:56 GMT, Mason A. Clark <masoncNOT@THISix.netcom.comQ>
wrote:
[color=blue]
>CSS Experts:
>
>OK, I'm a stupid newby. Now, here's the question:
>
>Can CSS replace slightly complicated Tables and work in three
>browsers (e.g. MSIE 6.0, Net 7.1, Op 7.03) ?
>
>After countless attempts I've concluded "no".
>
> Thank you,
>
> Mason C
>
>( not pertinent; for identification only: http://masonc.home.netcom.com )[/color]

On Fri, 16 Jan 2004 07:50:31 GMT, Mason A. Clark
<masoncNOT@THISix.netcom.comQ> wrote:
[color=blue]
> My web site layout currently uses <table><tr><td> etc. I'm wondering
> why
> I am reading "tables *misused* for layout" -- they seem to have worked
> without complaint for several years (css didn't exist :-).[/color]

Well, it was misused even then. Markup as "table" should mean it's a
"table", right? I don't think you'd argue that, if I made all my headings
on a page p's with big bold text and all of the paragraphs h2's with
smaller plain text, it was a bright idea.

Especially now that CSS is here, there's no excuse for calling a layout a
table. Mark my words, sites with table markup used for layout will *soon*
be thought of in the same category as sites using blink and marquee.
[color=blue]
> The tables behave well. I suspect that css boxes will be nervous
> nellies.[/color]

Not if you don't want them to. Do yourself a favor, learn more about it
before you pass judgement. I first tried it here and there about 2 years
ago. Only in the last 6 months or so have I really gotten into it. Didn't
take me long to realize the possibilities. Have you seen the CSS Zen
Garden? I personally don't like many of the designs, but the point is that
your flexibility in CSS design while maintaining meaningful markup for
those who need it is unparalleled in typical table layout.

[color=blue]
> PS: The W3C.ORG page layout "broke up" on F5 reload in MSIE by the
> center
> "News" column dropping below the left column.[/color]

If I set my browser to, say, 500 pixels wide, the far right column drops
below the left. What resolution are you at? Seems their layout is
optimized for 640px wide minimum. Go much below that, rather than have
horizontal scrolling they move the columns down.

Believe it or not, that's not a bug, that's a feature. CSS allows layout
to adjust to look good at any browser size, or you can fix it so you have
to horizontally scroll below a certain pixel width of your viewport.

As I have always hated using table markup for layout, I haven't done a lot
of it, but I've studied such layouts on many sites. To me, CSS might not
be able to do every last thing you can do with a table, but it can do
nearly everything, and better.

"Neal" <neal413@spamrcn.com> wrote in message
news:opr1uzytw2dvhyks@news.rcn.com...
....
| ...Mark my words, sites with table markup
| used for layout will *soon*
| be thought of in the same category
| as sites using blink and marquee.

I wish that were true, but I very much
doubt it. My reasoning is that blink/marquee
were transparently obvious to the user,
whereas using a table for layout is not.

--
Andrew Thompson
* http://www.PhySci.org/ PhySci software suite
* http://www.1point1C.org/ 1.1C - Superluminal!
* http://www.AThompson.info/andrew/ personal site

*Neal*:[color=blue]
>
> Especially now that CSS is here,[/color]

Where?
[color=blue]
> Mark my words, sites with table markup used for layout will *soon*
> be thought of in the same category as sites using blink and marquee.[/color]

There are much more important threats to usability and accessibility on the
current Web than tables (2-5 cells) used to apply a basic structure to a
page. Such a simple table is certainly better than a meaningless div soup
with some ugly, hackish, unreliable CSS.

Multiple nested tables just for layout _are_ bad, though.

--
Useless Fact #5:
'Dreamt' is the only English word that ends in the letters 'mt'.
'I am.' is the shortest complete sentence in the English language.
The longest one-syllable word in the English language is 'screeched.'

Christoph Paeper wrote:[color=blue]
>
> There are much more important threats to usability and
> accessibility on the current Web than tables (2-5 cells)[/color]

Undoubtedly. So perhaps someone who is in charge of an
already-existing, badly-coded web site should fix other problems
before removing incorrect markup. But that does not change the advice
for creating pages: use correct markup first. <table> for tabular
data, not layouts; <blockquote> for long quotations, not indent; <p>
for paragraphs, not newline or vertical spacing; etc.
[color=blue]
> used to apply a basic structure to a page. Such a simple table is
> certainly better than a meaningless div soup[/color]

Meaningless is better than incorrect. If it's not a table, then don't
mark it up as such.
[color=blue]
> with some ugly, hackish, unreliable CSS.[/color]

CSS is optional. It can be turned off quite easily in IE/Win, Mozilla,
and Opera (the latter is especially easy, I've heard). Misused table
markup can only be turned off in Opera. And in some browsing
situations, CSS -- even ugly, hackish, unreliable CSS -- is not
applied in the first place.

--
Brian
follow the directions in my address to email me

"Christoph Paeper" <christoph.paeper@nurfuerspam.de> wrote in
message news:bu8u8t$1a7t$1@ariadne.rz.tu-clausthal.de...
....
| 'I am.' is the shortest complete sentence in the English
language.

And the longest sentence known to man? 'I do.' ;-)

"Christoph Paeper" <christoph.paeper@nurfuerspam.de> wrote in message
news:bu8u8t$1a7t$1@ariadne.rz.tu-clausthal.de...
[color=blue]
> Useless Fact #5:
> 'Dreamt' is the only English word that ends in the letters 'mt'.
> 'I am.' is the shortest complete sentence in the English language.
> The longest one-syllable word in the English language is 'screeched.'[/color]

Tied with "strengths" and "straights".

On Fri, 16 Jan 2004 16:00:10 +0100, Christoph Paeper
<christoph.paeper@nurfuerspam.de> wrote:
[color=blue]
> *Neal*:[color=green]
>>
>> Especially now that CSS is here,[/color]
>
> Where?[/color]

Open your eyes, look around. As authors learn more about it - and that is
taking time - you'll see it more and more.
[color=blue][color=green]
>> Mark my words, sites with table markup used for layout will *soon*
>> be thought of in the same category as sites using blink and marquee.[/color]
>
> There are much more important threats to usability and accessibility on
> the
> current Web than tables (2-5 cells) used to apply a basic structure to a
> page. Such a simple table is certainly better than a meaningless div soup
> with some ugly, hackish, unreliable CSS.[/color]

Hmm. Care to provide a simple 2 to 5 cell table layout that cannot be
replicated with a comparable amount of keystrokes using divs and CSS
positioning?

I'm not saying table layouts can't look great. And I don't think they're
so evil they shouldn't be allowed within 500 feet of a school. But if the
proper tools for positioning can do it as well or better, does it still
make sense to use incorrect markup?

Consider this too - how are tables displayed in a handheld? They are often
a freakin' mess. Compare to how CSS positioning degrades.

Not only is CSS positioning the correct markup, it is more future-proof
than table layout.

Mason A. Clark wrote:[color=blue]
> I'm going to thank all of you for your comments. I am now less
> "newbie" and making progress on a css layout working in MSIE,
> Netscape, Opera. (Opera's javascript is another matter.)
>
> My web site layout currently uses <table><tr><td> etc. I'm
> wondering why
> I am reading "tables *misused* for layout" -- they seem to have
> worked without complaint for several years (css didn't exist :-).[/color]

Simple layout tables will also continue to work for perhaps the next 2
decades.

There is a *fact* that some people may not like to see revealed. From the time
that Dave Raggett proposed tables in "HTML+" in November 1993, tables have
been *intended* to display cells in a horizontal + vertical grid. And from
that date tables cells have been proposed and defined to contain complex
material, including headers, paragraphs, lists, text, and other stuff. (Which
is one of the reasons why their tags and attributes have terms like "row" and
"col" - that isn't an accident!)

Every single proposal and standard and Recommendation from that time onwards
has continued this theme, as far as I know. Tables are designed to layout
complex things in a grid-formation. It isn't an accident - they were always
intended to work like that! The proposals were, and the browsers were. That is
the defined nature of the web.

The very latest proposals are for XHTML 2.0, which we won't even see for
years. And guess what - just the same! Tables are designed & intended to deal
with complex content, and put it into a rectilinear array in visual-mode. That
is the current official W3C position on XHTML 2.0.

I have put lots of authoritative links to demonstrate that position in:
"A brief history of tables"
http://www.barry.pearson.name/articl...es/history.htm
[color=blue]
> The tables behave well. I suspect that css boxes will be nervous
> nellies.[/color]
[snip]

Tables behave very well, typically. My experience of CSS positioning is that
it is "an incompetent system". I have described my justification for this in:
"Reflections on CSS Positioning"
http://www.barry.pearson.name/articl...ositioning.htm

*Don't try to take part in this holy war!* You are responsible for what you
do. Use tables, CSS-P, hybrid schemes or something else. But take charge -
don't be bullied. You are the one who gets the blame!

--
Barry Pearson
http://www.Barry.Pearson.name/photography/
http://www.BirdsAndAnimals.info/
http://www.ChildSupportAnalysis.co.uk/

Barry:

Wow! You made my day --- hell, you made my year 2004 !

Thank you !!!!!

Mason C ( maybe not as dumb as I thought I was )

P.S.

But I experienced data to contest this:

' Across the world, taller children tend to be more knowledgeable than shorter
children. Is this "sizeism" or some genetic defect?

Primarily no. The hidden variable is "age". Older children tend to be taller.
Older children tend to know more. '


On Fri, 16 Jan 2004 22:03:24 -0000, "Barry Pearson"
<news@childsupportanalysis.co.uk> wrote:

summarized:
' My experience of CSS positioning is that it is "an incompetent system" '
[color=blue]
>Mason A. Clark wrote:[color=green]
>> I'm going to thank all of you for your comments. I am now less
>> "newbie" and making progress on a css layout working in MSIE,
>> Netscape, Opera. (Opera's javascript is another matter.)
>>
>> My web site layout currently uses <table><tr><td> etc. I'm
>> wondering why
>> I am reading "tables *misused* for layout" -- they seem to have
>> worked without complaint for several years (css didn't exist :-).[/color]
>
>Simple layout tables will also continue to work for perhaps the next 2
>decades.
>
>There is a *fact* that some people may not like to see revealed. From the time
>that Dave Raggett proposed tables in "HTML+" in November 1993, tables have
>been *intended* to display cells in a horizontal + vertical grid. And from
>that date tables cells have been proposed and defined to contain complex
>material, including headers, paragraphs, lists, text, and other stuff. (Which
>is one of the reasons why their tags and attributes have terms like "row" and
>"col" - that isn't an accident!)
>
>Every single proposal and standard and Recommendation from that time onwards
>has continued this theme, as far as I know. Tables are designed to layout
>complex things in a grid-formation. It isn't an accident - they were always
>intended to work like that! The proposals were, and the browsers were. That is
>the defined nature of the web.
>
>The very latest proposals are for XHTML 2.0, which we won't even see for
>years. And guess what - just the same! Tables are designed & intended to deal
>with complex content, and put it into a rectilinear array in visual-mode. That
>is the current official W3C position on XHTML 2.0.
>
>I have put lots of authoritative links to demonstrate that position in:
>"A brief history of tables"
>http://www.barry.pearson.name/articl...es/history.htm
>[color=green]
>> The tables behave well. I suspect that css boxes will be nervous
>> nellies.[/color]
>[snip]
>
>Tables behave very well, typically. My experience of CSS positioning is that
>it is "an incompetent system". I have described my justification for this in:
>"Reflections on CSS Positioning"
>http://www.barry.pearson.name/articl...ositioning.htm
>
>*Don't try to take part in this holy war!* You are responsible for what you
>do. Use tables, CSS-P, hybrid schemes or something else. But take charge -
>don't be bullied. You are the one who gets the blame![/color]

On Fri, 16 Jan 2004 16:00:10 +0100, Christoph Paeper
<christoph.paeper@nurfuerspam.de> wrote:
[color=blue]
>'I am.' is the shortest complete sentence in the English language.[/color]

'I is.' is slightly shorter (in mm) in a typical variable-width font.
You didn't specify it had to be a *correct* complete sentence. ;-)

[color=blue]
>The longest one-syllable word in the English language is 'screeched.'[/color]

And, according to my Dutch wife, the hardest one to pronounce is
'cloths'.

--
Stephen Poley

http://www.xs4all.nl/~sbpoley/webmatters/

On Fri, 16 Jan 2004 22:03:24 -0000, Barry Pearson
<news@childsupportanalysis.co.uk> wrote:
[color=blue]
> From the time
> that Dave Raggett proposed tables in "HTML+" in November 1993, tables
> have
> been *intended* to display cells in a horizontal + vertical grid.[/color]

How else *should* a proper table be displayed?
[color=blue]
> And from
> that date tables cells have been proposed and defined to contain complex
> material, including headers, paragraphs, lists, text, and other stuff.[/color]

Perhaps the intent was to not limit the kinds of tabular data the user can
employ. Can't a proper table take a list of items, a paragraph of text,
etc. as proper data?
[color=blue]
> (Which
> is one of the reasons why their tags and attributes have terms like
> "row" and
> "col" - that isn't an accident!)[/color]

Tables can have rows and columns. If you're comparing a set of items
(rows) against a set of attributes (columns) that's kinda part of the deal.
[color=blue]
> Every single proposal and standard and Recommendation from that time
> onwards
> has continued this theme, as far as I know.[/color]

And why wouldn't they?
[color=blue]
> Tables are designed to layout
> complex things in a grid-formation. It isn't an accident - they were
> always
> intended to work like that! The proposals were, and the browsers were.
> That is
> the defined nature of the web.[/color]

It's the defined nature of the table, man. Remember the times tables we
learned in school? Set up with 0 through 20 across the top, and 0 through
20 down the left side. Rows and columns! I suppose this means that the
justification for layout using tables dates as far back as the 70's when I
was in grade school.

You're essentially saying that because table markup accounts for rows and
columns and allows for multiple types of tabular data, tables are intended
for layout. You're blatantly ignoring the fact that tables as a tool have
been around for a very long time, and rows, columns and multiple forms of
data have been a part of that model long predating the Internet.

Were you hit in the head as a child? Do you not see the illogical leap
you've made?

There's a reason women should not shave their legs with a man's face
razor, and a reason we don't grind spices in the coffee grinder, and a
reason we don't do page layout with table markup, and it's the same reason
all around. It works for the job you have to do, but it ruins it for its
intended application.

No matter what sort of cheerleading you do, it remains that every
component of tabular markup is rooted in the history of table-making -
therefore, that is the intended application. And misusing the markup for
layout in the rampant fashion we've seen has nearly succeeded in making
the meaning of the markup meaningless.

How am I supposed to post my replies in a newsgroup?:
http://allmyfaqs.com/faq.pl?How_to_post
[color=blue]
> On Fri, 16 Jan 2004 22:03:24 -0000, Barry Pearson
> <news@childsupportanalysis.co.uk> wrote:
>[color=green]
>> Mason A. Clark wrote:
>>[color=darkred]
>>> My web site layout currently uses <table><tr><td> etc. I'm
>>> wondering why I am reading "tables *misused* for layout"[/color]
>>
>> one of the reasons why their tags and attributes have terms like
>> "row" and "col" - that isn't an accident!)[/color][/color]

See this same argument disected in ciwah.
[color=blue][color=green]
>> *Don't try to take part in this holy war!*[/color][/color]

Do ignore such hyperbole.

Mason A. Clark wrote:[color=blue]
> Barry:
>
> Wow! You made my day --- hell, you made my year 2004 !
>
> Mason C ( maybe not as dumb as I thought I was )[/color]

Noone has accused you of being dumb, so I see no reason to be
defensive about that. And misusing tables for layout is widely
practiced. So is misusing <blockquote> for layout. So you'll be in
good company. If you try to make html into a pseudo desktop publishing
language, you'll be playing to its weaknesses instead of its strengths.

--
Brian
follow the directions in my address to email me

Brian wrote:[color=blue]
> How am I supposed to post my replies in a newsgroup?:
> http://allmyfaqs.com/faq.pl?How_to_post[/color]

Why are you top posting? I don't care much about this, although it does screw
up the understanding of the dialogue if it goes on for more than one or two
exchanges. But some people get very upset! I suggest you read the page you
identified above.
[color=blue][color=green]
>> On Fri, 16 Jan 2004 22:03:24 -0000, Barry Pearson
>> <news@childsupportanalysis.co.uk> wrote:[/color][/color]
[snip]

--
Barry Pearson
http://www.Barry.Pearson.name/photography/
http://www.BirdsAndAnimals.info/
http://www.ChildSupportAnalysis.co.uk/

Barry Pearson wrote:[color=blue]
> Brian wrote:
>[color=green]
>> How am I supposed to post my replies in a newsgroup?:
>> http://allmyfaqs.com/faq.pl?How_to_post[/color]
>
> Why are you top posting?[/color]

What on earth are you talking about?
[color=blue]
> I suggest you read the page you identified above.[/color]

I suggest you read my post. Carefully, this time. You'll find my reply
interspersed in the message. (I did put the "how to post" link at the
top, but surely that's not what you're complaining about.)

--
Brian
follow the directions in my address to email me

Brian wrote:[color=blue]
> Barry Pearson wrote:[color=green]
>> Brian wrote:
>>[color=darkred]
>>> How am I supposed to post my replies in a newsgroup?:
>>> http://allmyfaqs.com/faq.pl?How_to_post[/color]
>>
>> Why are you top posting?[/color]
>
> What on earth are you talking about?
>[color=green]
>> I suggest you read the page you identified above.[/color]
>
> I suggest you read my post. Carefully, this time. You'll find my reply
> interspersed in the message. (I did put the "how to post" link at the
> top, but surely that's not what you're complaining about.)[/color]

What I saw at the start of your post was:

<extract>

How am I supposed to post my replies in a newsgroup?:
http://allmyfaqs.com/faq.pl?How_to_post
[color=blue]
> On Fri, 16 Jan 2004 22:03:24 -0000, Barry Pearson
> <news@childsupportanalysis.co.uk> wrote:[/color]

</extract>

I couldn't see why you were top-posting a reply to me with that reference. I
said so.

--
Barry Pearson
http://www.Barry.Pearson.name/photography/
http://www.BirdsAndAnimals.info/
http://www.ChildSupportAnalysis.co.uk/

Barry Pearson wrote:[color=blue]
>
> What I saw at the start of your post was:
>
> <extract>
>
> How am I supposed to post my replies in a newsgroup?:
> http://allmyfaqs.com/faq.pl?How_to_pos
>
>[color=green]
>>On Fri, 16 Jan 2004 22:03:24 -0000, Barry Pearson
>><news@childsupportanalysis.co.uk> wrote:[/color]
>
>
> </extract>
>
> I couldn't see why you were top-posting a reply[/color]

I wasn't top-posting a reply. My reply was interspersed, as is
customary in this newgroup.
[color=blue]
> to me[/color]

I wasn't replying to you. The reply from which the extract comes is a
reply to Mason A. Clark.
[color=blue]
> with that reference. I said so.[/color]

You were in the reference because Mason A. Clark quoted you and
top-posted.

--
Brian
follow the directions in my address to email me

http://www.htmlhelp.com/reference/css/dependence.html

Quoth the raven named Mason A. Clark:
[color=blue]
> http://www.htmlhelp.com/reference/css/dependence.html[/color]

That page is sooooo last century.

<g>

What was it you were replying to?

--
-bts
-This space intentionally left blank.

On Tue, 03 Feb 2004 18:05:49 GMT, Mason A. Clark
<masoncNOT@THISix.netcom.comQ> wrote:
[color=blue]
>
>
> http://www.htmlhelp.com/reference/css/dependence.html[/color]


I have no idea to whom you are replying, but I'll always say that one
should first make a page that looks reasonable and readable without style,
then add style all you want.

That's why it's recommended to put img dimensions in your code - even
though this is a presentational markup, it's essential to add in order to
allow the unstyled page to load conveniently. Same thing applies to HTML
tables - without borders or rules applied in the HTML the resulting table
might be more difficult to read in many cases, so we allow this
presentational aspect in the HTML for clarity.

It's only when the functionality of the unstyled page is not affected that
we must use CSS. If styling in CSS leads to the unstyled page not working
well, we ought to fix the unstyled page first and then style that.

On Tue, 03 Feb 2004 22:25:58 GMT, "Beauregard T. Shagnasty"
<a.nony.mous@example.invalid> wrote:
[color=blue]
>Quoth the raven named Mason A. Clark:
>[color=green]
>> http://www.htmlhelp.com/reference/css/dependence.html[/color]
>
>That page is sooooo last century.[/color]

It would be more constructive to state what is out of date.[color=blue]
>
><g>
>
>What was it you were replying to?[/color]

">That page is sooooo last century."

I could see it coming.

Mason C