Hi,
I'll be very grateful if somebody can explain me why my Opera 7.23
(runing under linux) doesn't show me inner tables. Using below code I
can see only "inner table 1". There is no problem with other browsers
(I checked it under Konqueror).
Thank you in advance for your help.
Regards.
/Mariusz
<HTML>
<HEAD>
</HEAD>
<BODY>
<TABLE BORDER=1 WIDTH=800 ALIGN="center">
<TR ALIGN="center">
<TD ALIGN="left" WIDTH=100>
<TABLE BORDER=1 ALIGN="left" WIDTH=100%>
<TR ALIGN="left" WIDTH=100%><TD ALIGN="left">in ner table 1</TD></TR>
</TABLE>
<TABLE BORDER=1 ALIGN="left" WIDTH=100%>
<TR ALIGN="left" WIDTH=100%><TD ALIGN="left">in ner table 2</TD></TR>
</TABLE>
</TD>
</TR>
</TABLE>
</BODY>
</HTML>
Jul 20 '05
44  3896 
Barry Pearson wrote:
There is a fact that some people may not like to see revealed.
When I read a statement like that, I feel the need to get my bogosity
meter out (again).
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.
(Which is one of the reasons why their tags and attributes have
terms like "row" and "col" - that isn't an accident!)
That is one twisted interpretation. The tag names are indeed useful
evidence. We have <table>, <tr> for table row, <col> for column, and
several other elements. But let's not forget the only table markup
element that can contain e.g. text, images, paragraphs, lists, etc.:
<td>, which stands for table data. That's *table data*. Say it once
with me. "Table data." Not <layout>. Not <left> or <right>. Table
data. I can't imagine how you can interpret the name of the element to
justify anything other than, well, table data.
A table used for layout does not put table data in <td> elements. It
uses <td> elements to enclose random bits of the document solely for
the layout effect it will have.
Whatever other baseless arguments you want to make in defense of
html markup misuse, this one about the names of table markup
elements is quite bogus indeed.
How do we resolve this disagreement?
When you reach your senses? When you stop stubbornly insisting that
misusing html markup is a good idea?
I'm not holding my breath.
--
Brian
follow the directions in my address to email me
Alan J. Flavell wrote: On Fri, Jan 16, Barry Pearson inscribed on the eternal scroll:
There is a fact that some people may not like to see revealed.
It holds no fears for me...
Good.
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.
Not quite. Tables have been intended to markup a logical
relationship; when the presentation situation is appropriate, it's
intended that the relationship would be depicted as a 2-dimensional
grid, but that's not a mandatory requirement of the logical markup.
I suggest you re-read Dave Raggett's proposal. This is the point I am trying
to make. Although people say the sort of things you have just said, when I go
the the sources, they say something different. His proposal says nothing
whatsoever about logical relationships. I can't find any early discussion of
tables that does. His description is about defining new HTML features,
"tables", in order to layout the content of the cells in a horizontal by
vertical grid on displays. It is explicit - not ambiguous. It is
systematically and relentlessly about displaying the material.
If you know of material that defined an early intention to use tables to
specify logical relationships, separate from the visual representation,
*please* point them out to me! I have spent lots of time trying to find it,
and haven't found it yet. (I keep wondering whether people are trying to
re-write history).
See:
"A brief history of tables"
http://www.barry.pearson.name/articl...es/history.htm
If I'm going to say anything at all about this, then I'm going to have
to be candid.
Good.
In this respect I think I can claim the following -
1. I do know a little bit about the topics on which I choose to
comment, and I do have quite strong personal opinions about them,
2. Ihappen to be the principal author of several peer-reviewed FAQs in
which I deliberately throttled-back on my personal opinions and
managed, as it seems, to express an answer in terms that gained
widespread acceptance in the communities to which the various FAQs
were addressed.
Been there, done that, got the T shirt. Maintaining FAQs can indeed be tricky!
(I received a death threat once).
On that basis, I think I can comment from both sides: the
strongly-held personal opinion, and the opinion-neutral presentation
of the facts.
And on that basis, my evaluation of your writings on this topic would
have to be this, I'm afraid: you formed a strong personal opinion of
what the answer had to be, and then you selected your evidence in
order to support it.
Don't be afraid. Just show the evidence, and there is nothing to be afraid of.
Remember that *you* were the one who identified to me Dave Raggett's HTML+
draft that I quoted above.
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm...6.ph.gla.ac.uk
I can only use the sources I can find and be told about. You told me about
that one. Shouldn't I have used it? (Should I have acknowledged you? Sorry I
didn't).
I am trying to make this page (below) a high-quality source of information
about how tables, and especially layout-tables, developed on the web. I
wouldn't waste my time if I knew of an equivalent source, but I haven't been
able to find one. I have had to put this together from lots of different
sources, not all consistent with one-another.
http://www.barry.pearson.name/articl...es/history.htm
If there are errors, please (you and anyone else) tell me, with evidence. I'll
correct them.
If there are other sources I should use, please tell me about them. I'll use
them and link to them.
If it is the interpretation and opinion where you differ, then obviously that
is expected. But tell me of the differing interpretation and opinion based on
known facts, and I'll link to them. If there are a number of these, I'll
create a new page specifically for the purpose.
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.
They're designed to express a relationship which, in appropriate
circumstances, it's appropriate to present in a two-dimensional grid
relationship.
And to lay it out in a grid. The layout comes across from Raggett's
description. The relationship bit doesn't. And indeed, for simple tables, the
same is true of subsequent Recommendations . The fuller table models talk about
how to represent the logical relationships. The simpler ones don't. And layout
tables use the simpler model.
My degree is in mathematical physics. I understand about logical relationships
in many dimensions. Which means that I can spot specifications that simply
don't talk about them! Raggett's doesn't. What early material does?
It isn't an accident
I don't disagree. But: when the presentation situation makes a visual
grid impractical, the *intention* was to present the relationships in
some alternative way.
Indeed. I don't think anyone is arguing with this. I have tried IBM's Home
Page Reader to see what it would do, and it linearises. It handled simple
layout tables well.
I have tried Opera 7.2 in "small screen mode" on many web sites, to see how
table layout maps onto 240px screens. And if they linearise well (see above),
it works well. Astonishingly well! ("New windows" fail, though).
If, in fact, there _is_ no such relationship, other than the
designer's visual intentions, then the tabular markup becomes not just
useless, but actively counter-productive.
No - it does precisely what the author and the user want. It presents an
attractive page with key components just where the author intended them to be,
and the user wanted/needed them to be. I suggest you read:
Criteria for optimal web design (designing for usability), By Michael Bernard
http://psychology.wichita.edu/optimalweb/print.htm
Any scheme that doesn't enable an author to position material reliably
according to such research, and that doesn't deliver it reliably to users who
use default settings, is failing to communicate properly. It is *objectively*
bad.
- they were always intended to work like that! The proposals were,
and the browsers were. That is the defined nature of the web.
I'm going to have to disagree. Keep in mind that there are two kinds
of W3C specification, and they're hard to keep apart, "thanks" to the
fact that the W3C is not an independent standards-making body but an
industry consortium funded by its members. Sometimes their
specifications merely document what their members' software is
currently doing, and sometimes they sketch out more abstruse ideas
about the fundamental basis of what's going on. Compare, if you will,
HTML/3.2(spit), a fairly disgusting codification of what the
then-big-two were up to at the time, with CSS1, a somewhat idealised
specification that those big-two never did quite get around to
implementing.
Raggett's table proposals were published in November 1993. They were based on
a WWW workshop in July 1993 and subsequent discussions on www-talk. I can't
find material about the workshop, and the www-talk archive has a "hole" in it
at that date. Can you or anyone help?
Was Raggett being pressured by the suppliers? (This was before W3C, of
course). It was more than a year before Mosaic provided tables even in an
Alpha version, and NN and IE were months after. I suspect that Raggett was
leading the browser suppliers, and certainly not trying to "document what
their members' software is currently doing".
Now look at what happened since. Do I need to spell it out? OK,
probably spelling it out would be pointless anyway: those who
understand it already, don't need to hear it from me, and those who
still think it's pseudo-HTML DTP, wouldn't listen to me anyway, so I
might as well save my breath/keyboard.
I covered the topic of saying such as "the web is not DTP" in my article:
"Sayings": http://www.barry.pearson.name/articl...es/sayings.htm
--
Barry Pearson http://www.Barry.Pearson.name/photography/ http://www.BirdsAndAnimals.info/ http://www.ChildSupportAnalysis.co.uk/
"Barry Pearson" <ne**@childsupp ortanalysis.co. uk> wrote: I suggest you re-read Dave Raggett's proposal. This is the point I am trying
to make. Although people say the sort of things you have just said, when I go
the the sources, they say something different.
From the very first line of the section on tables <url:
http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/HTMLPlus/htmlplus_39.htm l>
"Tables are specified using the TABLE element. This allows you to
define a caption and to differentiate header and data cells."
"header and data cells"? Sounds like data tables to me.
His proposal says nothing whatsoever about logical relationships.
It says nothing about using tables for layout purposes.
Steve
--
"My theories appal you, my heresies outrage you,
I never answer letters and you don't like my tie." - The Doctor
Steve Pugh <st***@pugh.net > <http://steve.pugh.net/>
Steve Pugh <st***@pugh.net > wrote: "Barry Pearson" <ne**@childsupp ortanalysis.co. uk> wrote:
I suggest you re-read Dave Raggett's proposal. This is the point I am trying
to make. Although people say the sort of things you have just said, when I go
the the sources, they say something different.
From the very first line of the section on tables <url:
http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/HTMLPlus/htmlplus_39.htm l>
"Tables are specified using the TABLE element. This allows you to
define a caption and to differentiate header and data cells."
"header and data cells"? Sounds like data tables to me.
His proposal says nothing whatsoever about logical relationships.
It says nothing about using tables for layout purposes.
It says nothing about "not" using tables for layout purposes?
John OO
--
<http://webcel.nl/> webshopsoftware + more
"Time is what prevents everything from happening at once"
- John Archibald Wheeler -
On Sun, 18 Jan 2004 12:02:16 +0100, John W. <no_spam@web cel.enel> wrote: It says nothing about "not" using tables for layout purposes?
It also says nothing about not using p elements with CSS to emulate a
list. Yet I'm sure you don't advocate that.
This is compelling in demonstrating the W3C's attitude, though. From http://www.w3.org/TR/CSS2/selector.html :
"CSS gives so much power to the "class" attribute, that authors could
conceivably design their own "document language" based on elements with
almost no associated presentation (such as DIV and SPAN in HTML) and
assigning style information through the "class" attribute. Authors should
avoid this practice since the structural elements of a document language
often have recognized and accepted meanings and author-defined classes may
not."
While this is not directly analogous to the concept of mis-applying table
markup to layout, it does show that the W3C would rather authors use the
markup in a meaningful way. This says that even if we can use span to
create a whole vocabulary of inline elements, we should not because it
won't have accepted meaning.
Now it's reasonable to assume that the table element was invented to make
tables, unless other compelling evidence exists. That evidence being
absent, it would seem that the meaning of table is a table.
I attempted to post the other day, and I have not seen it, so apologies if
I repeat myself. But the reason I do not allow my girlfriend to shave her
legs with my face razor is, while it will work, it ruins it for my
application. I don't grind spices in my coffee grinder because while the
spice grinds very well my coffee tasteds terrible afterward.
The reason not to use tables for markup is that it ruins the table as a
meaningful markup.
On Sun, 18 Jan 2004, John W. wrote: It says nothing about "not" using tables for layout purposes?
I don't think it says anything about not using tables instead of <ul>
or <ol> or <dl>, all of which I've seen done in practice (I think it's
a bad idea, just in case there's any doubt).
In the past I've also use a floated single-celled table for supplying
side-notes. I thought it was a bad idea in theory at the time, but
pragmatically it was the best that could be done back then; nowadays
one would obviously use a floated <div>. I don't suppose Raggett
*said* anything against using tables for that, either, in his actual
draft, but that doesn't necessarily mean he supported such a (mis)use.
One really can't expect a specification, draft or otherwise, to
enumerate all possible (mis)uses of that specification.
Steve Pugh wrote: "Barry Pearson" <ne**@childsupp ortanalysis.co. uk> wrote:
I suggest you re-read Dave Raggett's proposal. This is the point I am trying
to make. Although people say the sort of things you have just said, when I go
the the sources, they say something different.
From the very first line of the section on tables <url:
http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/HTMLPlus/htmlplus_39.htm l>
"header and data cells"? Sounds like data tables to me.
It is also glaringly obvious from the examples on the page that the
intended use is for showing tabular data in a 2-dimensional grid. No?
--
To email a reply, remove (dash)un(dash). Mail sent to the un
address is considered spam and automatically deleted.
On Sat, 17 Jan 2004, Barry Pearson wrote: I suggest you re-read Dave Raggett's proposal.
OK, we're discussing
http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/HTMLPlus/htmlplus_39.html
His proposal says nothing whatsoever about logical relationships.
Not in so many words, it's true. It's based on some kind of tacit
understanding of what a "table" is, without attempting to define it
theoretically; however, the examples that are offered are most
definitely examples of what one could call (somewhat circularly!)
"tabular data".
I can't find any early discussion of tables that does.
And I can't find any early discussion of tables that doesn't.
There was a discussion at the 1994 WWW conference in which we see
brief mention of the possibility of laying-out mathematical formulae
by using <table> markup, but that possibility is rapidly set aside in
favour of something else. (Google for html+.workshop. notes )
In 1995 we find Raggett producing a demonstration of the Arena browser
which contains in part some tabular data (an address book), but the
other part is a pure layout, of materials which bear no obvious
relationship to each other. I.e superficially supporting your
contention: http://www.w3.org/Arena/tour/tables2.html
This is presented as "Using tables for flexible layout", as if it
might be a rather new idea for exploiting the previously-drafted table
markup. You'll likely say (but can't prove) that the idea had been
there all along. I'll be inclined to say (but can't prove) that all
the discussion about table markup, the CALS model, SGML compatibility,
automatic rendering algorithms with just maybe the possibility for
author-supplied rendering hints, accessibility to other browsing
situations, and so on, was tacitly based on a common understanding
that they knew what a "table" was in principle, and were primarily
discussing how to mark up something that they'd already be willing to
agree was a table.
His description is about defining new HTML features, "tables", in
order to layout the content of the cells in a horizontal by vertical
grid on displays.
His description is about marking-up content with HTML markup, and the
implementation issues for browsers to render that markup, optionally
using presentation hints. This is the standard theme of HTML: markup
the content at the server side; render the content in accordance with
the browsing situation at the client side. Please, don't try to
conflate the two parts, or you discard the very essence of HTML.
That's where the Big Two went wrong, and drifted into a situation that
gave us presentational pseudo-HTML DTP and HTML3.2(spit), and wasted a
couple of years that *could* have been spent developing stylesheets.
They're designed to express a relationship which, in appropriate
circumstances, it's appropriate to present in a two-dimensional grid
relationship.
And to lay it out in a grid.
Of course - when that presentation is an appropriate one.
The layout comes across from Raggett's description.
In the part where he's discussing rendering algorithms, indeed.
The relationship bit doesn't.
In the 1993 draft, he offers just two examples, both of which are
clearly expressing relationships. I'd say that carries some kind of
message.
In the 1995 Arena practical demonstration he offers (in effect) two
examples, one of which clearly expresses relationships, about which he
makes no specific comment; and for the other he goes out of his way to
comment that it is "Using tables for flexible layout", with additional
comment to that effect in the material itself: "This example shows how
you can use tables to layout text and images in a flexible way".
^^^^^^^
(it doesn't say "this is what tables are for", it "shows how you can
use tables [for doing this]". See the difference?)
My interpretation: he assumed that readers would understand what a
table was, without special explanations, but needed to have
tables-for-layout explained as if they were a special case, not part
of common knowledge and experience; and that was in 1995. It isn't an accident
I don't disagree. But: when the presentation situation makes a visual
grid impractical, the *intention* was to present the relationships in
some alternative way.
Indeed. I don't think anyone is arguing with this. I have tried IBM's Home
Page Reader to see what it would do, and it linearises.
So it does, which isn't much help when trying to understand what
relationship was being expressed in the table. But again we seem to
have the tail wagging the dog. The fact that IBM HPR linearises
tables does not in itself prove that tables are intended for visual
layout.
The WAI discussions have gone into some detail to try to distinguish
between tabular relationships on the one hand, and tables-for-layout
on the other, and to act usefully in both cases. It can be done only
imperfectly, and it would have been better if the problem had not been
created in the first place. But this posting isn't supposed to be
about advocacy, but rather about what the historical evidence might
mean. And I think I've had enough for today.
all the best
"Alan J. Flavell" <fl*****@ph.gla .ac.uk> wrote: On Sun, 18 Jan 2004, John W. wrote:
It says nothing about "not" using tables for layout purposes?
I don't think it says anything about not using tables instead of <ul>
or <ol> or <dl>, all of which I've seen done in practice (I think it's
a bad idea, just in case there's any doubt).
In the past I've also use a floated single-celled table for supplying
side-notes. I thought it was a bad idea in theory at the time, but
pragmaticall y it was the best that could be done back then; nowadays
one would obviously use a floated <div>. I don't suppose Raggett
*said* anything against using tables for that, either, in his actual
draft, but that doesn't necessarily mean he supported such a (mis)use.
One really can't expect a specification, draft or otherwise, to
enumerate all possible (mis)uses of that specification.
introducing again: Steve Pugh's reference to :
<http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/HTMLPlus/htmlplus_39.htm l>
Because only untill much later somebody found out that tables could be
applied for layout i find that a reference to the above mentioned URL
was not very useful, hence my remark :-)
Because i think that it is quite safe to assume that in 1993 nobody
even thought about applying the possibilities of <table> for layout
purposes because webpages were supposed to be 1 column only.
Read from the W3C WD from 1996:
<http://sunhe.jinr.ru/docs/w3c/TR/WD-layout.html>
<q>
Introduction
Until recently Web browsers have rendered HTML documents as single
column scrolling windows.
Authors have been given very limited means to control the placement of
features in the window.
Traditional page-layout authoring tools for desktop publishing allow
you to create and move and resize document frames.
You can then view and alter properties of these frames, e.g. the
background color and the style of borders if any.
You may also be able to drag and drop objects onto frames, and to move
and resize the objects relative to the frame on which they have been
attached.
</>
As N2 was introduced Beta/1995 and Final/1996, it is therefore quite
possible that immediately after the release of N2 the first websites
were produced including table_layout in the frames and far ahead of
the release HTML 4.0, 1998/9 including the frame-specs.
Blooberry timeline:
- HTML 4.0 draft (evolved from Cougar) released - July, 1997
- HTML 4.0 becomes W3C proposed recommendation - November, 1997
- HTML 4.0 becomes W3C recommendation - December, 1997
- HTML 4.0 revised and certified W3C recommendation - April, 1998
A development which must now be regarded as a developing horrorstory
to most of the readers of this ng :-)
<on a sideline>
you can safely use a hammer to hammer a screw into a wall,
but it's useless to try to use a screwdriver to screw a nail into a
wall :-)
</>
The screw and nail being the content, the question remains in the case
of <table> versus CSS: which is the hammer and which is the
screwdriver :-)
Also very interesting is that with CSS2 the following table-related
properties: -border-collapse-, -border-spacing-, -caption-side-,
-empty-cells- and -table-layout- were introduced because -border-,
-width- and -height- were found not to be sufficient :-)
BTW I find the whole tread most interesting and amusing.
John OO
--
<http://webcel.nl/> webshopsoftware + more
"Time is what prevents everything from happening at once"
- John Archibald Wheeler -
Alan J. Flavell wrote: On Sat, 17 Jan 2004, Barry Pearson wrote:
I suggest you re-read Dave Raggett's proposal.
OK, we're discussing
http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/HTMLPlus/htmlplus_39.html
[snip] His description is about marking-up content with HTML markup, and the
implementation issues for browsers to render that markup, optionally
using presentation hints. This is the standard theme of HTML: markup
the content at the server side; render the content in accordance with
the browsing situation at the client side. Please, don't try to
conflate the two parts, or you discard the very essence of HTML.
That's where the Big Two went wrong, and drifted into a situation that
gave us presentational pseudo-HTML DTP and HTML3.2(spit), and wasted a
couple of years that *could* have been spent developing stylesheets.
I remember those browser battles, and "this page is best viewed with X - click
here to download". Yeuk! But without those browser battles, would the web have
taken-off as it did? I don't believe there was *ever* a viable path from the
purest vision behind the web to an ideal implementation of it. We don't live
in a world where it is useful for students to say "if only everyone learned to
like one-another, we wouldn't have wars". They are literally right - but
totally irrelevant. And perhaps they will eventually grow up.
As GBS said: "Reasonable people adapt themselves to the world. Unreasonable
people attempt to adapt the world to themselves. All progress, therefore,
depends on unreasonable people". There are people on the playing field trying
to make things happen, and there are those on the sidelines saying "you
shouldn't play this game like that". Guess who has most influence in the
world?
I believe people need visions. You probably have them. So do I. We shouldn't
expect for a second that our visions will just happen. Instead, at each stage,
we should be saying "we are here, where should we be, do I need to revise my
previous vision, now what do I do next to nudge things in the right
direction?" It is like getting to the moon - a massive blast-off, lots of
course corrections, and tons of luck. And abandon regrets!
In a world of 6 billion people, why should 100 people who are not contributing
vast amounts of money expect to make dramatic changes? Only if what they doing
is what the 6 billion people show they want, not what the 100 people
themselves want.
[snip] My interpretation: he assumed that readers would understand what a
table was, without special explanations, but needed to have
tables-for-layout explained as if they were a special case, not part
of common knowledge and experience; and that was in 1995.
Hm! Then perhaps he was seriously mistaken! The problem is that for decades
before that, we all knew about computerisation of N-dimensional arrays. We all
used programming languages that supported them, and could render 2-dimensional
slices through them. Some of us could integrate in 3N (or 6N) dimensions,
where N was the number of molecules in a gas. (Thermodynamics ). I believe many
of us could spot a layout-scheme, rather than a semantic/logical scheme, a
mile away. If HTML+ was ever a semantic mark-up scheme, it would have been
pretty obvious. For one thing, it wouldn't have been 2-dimensional! Or have
mark-up explicitly named (<tr>) for row-primary. Those are a layout
constraints.
If HTML+ had said the following, I might have believed that it was truly
concerned with logical/semantic mark-up rather than layout:
<array><awrap >
<ad> ... </ad>
<ad> ... </ad>
</awrap>
<awrap>
<ad> ... </ad>
<ad> ... </ad>
</awrap></array>
That is a possible concise 2-dimensional simplification of an N-dimensional
logical/semantic mark-up language. A 3-dimensional (1 x 1 x 1 array) version
might have said:
<array><awrap>< awrap>
<ad> ... </ad>
</awrap></awrap></array>
[snip] Indeed. I don't think anyone is arguing with this. I have tried
IBM's Home Page Reader to see what it would do, and it linearises.
So it does, which isn't much help when trying to understand what
relationship was being expressed in the table. But again we seem to
have the tail wagging the dog. The fact that IBM HPR linearises
tables does not in itself prove that tables are intended for visual
layout.
True. There are several issues being conflated here. I have tried to
disentangle them, but perhaps I have also added to the confusion. (Sorry).
- What were the original intentions? They are interesting from a historical
perspective. They are irrelevant for how we should behave today. We can't
afford to re-fight lost battles. (But history is still interesting! That is
why I am maintaining a page on the subject).
- How do things behave today, and in the future? This is what matters. Authors
are trying to communicate with users. The rest is infrastructure. The main 5
(or so) boxes on a pages are vitally important to users. So they should also
be important to authors. Get those right, and the rest is detail in
comparison. Sort out the handful of things at the top of your document tree,
and the rest is twiddling. How should we do that, with "industrial strength"?
- When in doubt, go back to the specification. I assume we all wish that all
browsers conformed to specification! (We can't say "conform to all
specifications - except where I disagree with them!") So, what do the
specifications say is data for tables? "The HTML table model allows authors to
arrange data -- text, preformatted text, images, links, forms, form fields,
other tables, etc. -- into rows and columns of cells". (HTML 4.0 & 4.01).
- Use a checklist to evaluate options. I use the following - do a Google
search on:
"OPENframew ork systems architecture"
(Check in the books for a name you recognise).
The WAI discussions have gone into some detail to try to distinguish
between tabular relationships on the one hand, and tables-for-layout
on the other, and to act usefully in both cases. It can be done only
imperfectly, and it would have been better if the problem had not been
created in the first place. But this posting isn't supposed to be
about advocacy, but rather about what the historical evidence might
mean. And I think I've had enough for today.
I agree with "... not been created in the first place ..."! But I can't find
any indication that those people actually cared about page-layout! It appears
to have been a blind-spot. I worry that it is *still* a blind-spot. Anyone who
cared about where the main 5 (or so) boxes on a page ended up wouldn't have
delivereed any current version of (X)HTML, nor either CSS1 or CSS2. Until they
start realising that this matters, and needs a suitable abstraction and
language, we will continue as we are - for decades.
--
Barry Pearson http://www.Barry.Pearson.name/photography/ http://www.BirdsAndAnimals.info/ http://www.ChildSupportAnalysis.co.uk/ This thread has been closed and replies have been disabled. Please start a new discussion. Similar topics | |
by: foldface |
last post by:
Hi
I'm working with a web site where 99% of the content is dynamic
and words can be of any size, e.g. thiswouldbeavalidword.
At the moment everything is done using inner tables, I want
to move to a css type design.
My issue is that I can't really use absolute positioning
because, as I say, the words can be of any size, and I have no
way of knowing how big the content is going to be. Plus I'd
just like to avoid it anyway.
I've used...
|
by: Daniel |
last post by:
when i set the BackgroundImage property in the designer the image still
doesnt show in the background of the textbox any other property must be set?
|
by: Daniel |
last post by:
how to make sure a xsl document has valid xsl syntax? i tried loading it
into an xml document but that doesnt show syntax errors inside attributes
such as "foo/bar" vs "bar\foo"
|
by: pmud |
last post by:
Hi,
I am using a compare validator in asp.net application(c# code). This Custom
validator is used for comparing a value enterd by the user against the
primary key in the SQL database. IF the VALUE ENTERED BY THE USER EXISTS IN
THE DB , then THE ERROR MESSAGE OF THE COMPARE VALIDATOR SHOULD BE DISPLAYED.
For this, I used the reference artiicle
"http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/default.asp?url=/library/en-...
|
by: PAUL MITCHELL |
last post by:
Hello,
bit of strange one this, I have a VB .net application that has Sub
Main() as its startup procedure, this then creates and shows a form. Up till
now when I pressed F5 the form would duly appear.
Whats happening now is the project appears to start but the form doesnt
show. The process appears in Task manager but in VB .net the the blue bar at
the top still still says and the usual stop button isnt there and
the IDE just appears to...
| | |
by: hwDevelop |
last post by:
I have a toolstrip with several buttons on it, but when i changed the
images, most of them doesnt show on runtime. I tried several different
formats .bmp, .png, .ico for these buttons without any success, however
there are 1 to 2 images that display correctly. Does anybody know what
might be causing this and the fix for this problem.?
|
by: Stefan van Roosmalen |
last post by:
Hi there,
Is there a way to list the TEMPORATY tables?
I have tried SHOW TABLES, but this command only list the regular tables.
Thank you very much for your answer.
Regards,
Stefan.
|
by: kkshansid |
last post by:
<?php
session_start();
?>
<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Transitional//EN" "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-transitional.dtd">
<html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">
<head>
<title></title>
<meta name="generator" content="Microsoft FrontPage 5.0" />
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1" />
|
by: marktang |
last post by:
ONU (Optical Network Unit) is one of the key components for providing high-speed Internet services. Its primary function is to act as an endpoint device located at the user's premises. However, people are often confused as to whether an ONU can Work As a Router. In this blog post, we’ll explore What is ONU, What Is Router, ONU & Router’s main usage, and What is the difference between ONU and Router. Let’s take a closer look !
Part I. Meaning of...
|
by: Hystou |
last post by:
Most computers default to English, but sometimes we require a different language, especially when relocating. Forgot to request a specific language before your computer shipped? No problem! You can effortlessly switch the default language on Windows 10 without reinstalling. I'll walk you through it.
First, let's disable language synchronization. With a Microsoft account, language settings sync across devices. To prevent any complications,...
|
by: Oralloy |
last post by:
Hello folks,
I am unable to find appropriate documentation on the type promotion of bit-fields when using the generalised comparison operator "<=>".
The problem is that using the GNU compilers, it seems that the internal comparison operator "<=>" tries to promote arguments from unsigned to signed.
This is as boiled down as I can make it.
Here is my compilation command:
g++-12 -std=c++20 -Wnarrowing bit_field.cpp
Here is the code in...
| | |
by: jinu1996 |
last post by:
In today's digital age, having a compelling online presence is paramount for businesses aiming to thrive in a competitive landscape. At the heart of this digital strategy lies an intricately woven tapestry of website design and digital marketing. It's not merely about having a website; it's about crafting an immersive digital experience that captivates audiences and drives business growth.
The Art of Business Website Design
Your website is...
|
by: Hystou |
last post by:
Overview:
Windows 11 and 10 have less user interface control over operating system update behaviour than previous versions of Windows. In Windows 11 and 10, there is no way to turn off the Windows Update option using the Control Panel or Settings app; it automatically checks for updates and installs any it finds, whether you like it or not. For most users, this new feature is actually very convenient. If you want to control the update process,...
|
by: tracyyun |
last post by:
Dear forum friends,
With the development of smart home technology, a variety of wireless communication protocols have appeared on the market, such as Zigbee, Z-Wave, Wi-Fi, Bluetooth, etc. Each protocol has its own unique characteristics and advantages, but as a user who is planning to build a smart home system, I am a bit confused by the choice of these technologies. I'm particularly interested in Zigbee because I've heard it does some...
|
by: conductexam |
last post by:
I have .net C# application in which I am extracting data from word file and save it in database particularly. To store word all data as it is I am converting the whole word file firstly in HTML and then checking html paragraph one by one.
At the time of converting from word file to html my equations which are in the word document file was convert into image.
Globals.ThisAddIn.Application.ActiveDocument.Select();...
|
by: 6302768590 |
last post by:
Hai team
i want code for transfer the data from one system to another through IP address by using C# our system has to for every 5mins then we have to update the data what the data is updated we have to send another system
|
by: bsmnconsultancy |
last post by:
In today's digital era, a well-designed website is crucial for businesses looking to succeed. Whether you're a small business owner or a large corporation in Toronto, having a strong online presence can significantly impact your brand's success. BSMN Consultancy, a leader in Website Development in Toronto offers valuable insights into creating effective websites that not only look great but also perform exceptionally well. In this comprehensive...
| |
