469,366 Members | 2,227 Online
Bytes | Developer Community
New Post

Home Posts Topics Members FAQ

Post your question to a community of 469,366 developers. It's quick & easy.

Is the end of HTML as we know it?

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

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

Do you agree with that?
I don't.
I've run into many situations where I just couldn't achieve the
desired effect in different browsers without using tables.
But it could be that I'm not well versed on the intricacies of CSS ...

Nov 3 '07
136 4288
In article <8b******************************@comcast.com>,
Jerry Stuckle <js*******@attglobal.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
Nov 5 '07 #51
Sherman Pendley wrote:
1001 Webs <10******@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
Nov 5 '07 #52
dorayme wrote:
In article <8b******************************@comcast.com>,
Jerry Stuckle <js*******@attglobal.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.
js*******@attglobal.net
==================

Nov 5 '07 #53
In article <_N******************************@comcast.com>,
Jerry Stuckle <js*******@attglobal.netwrote:
dorayme wrote:
In article <8b******************************@comcast.com>,
Jerry Stuckle <js*******@attglobal.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
Nov 5 '07 #54
dorayme wrote:
In article <_N******************************@comcast.com>,
Jerry Stuckle <js*******@attglobal.netwrote:
>dorayme wrote:
>>In article <8b******************************@comcast.com>,
Jerry Stuckle <js*******@attglobal.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.
js*******@attglobal.net
==================

Nov 5 '07 #55
On 2007-11-05, Jerry Stuckle <js*******@attglobal.netwrote:
dorayme wrote:
[...]
>>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 don't like tables for layout any more than you or dorayme. But you are
obviously babbling.

Everything you're talking about above, inasmuch as one can make sense of
it, can be achieved with tables and no CSS.

The main thing you seem to be thinking of here is floats. You can get
most of that behaviour with the deprecated align property.

In fact, to wrap text around an image, you don't even need a table: you
can just set align="right" (or "left") on the img.
Nov 5 '07 #56
On Nov 3, 8:16 pm, Jerry Stuckle <jstuck...@attglobal.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.

Nov 5 '07 #57
On Nov 4, 7:17 pm, Jerry Stuckle <jstuck...@attglobal.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?

Nov 5 '07 #58
Travis Newbury wrote:
On Nov 3, 8:16 pm, Jerry Stuckle <jstuck...@attglobal.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.
js*******@attglobal.net
==================

Nov 5 '07 #59
On Nov 4, 8:51 pm, dorayme <doraymeRidT...@optusnet.com.auwrote:
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

Nov 5 '07 #60
On Nov 4, 8:03 pm, Jerry Stuckle <jstuck...@attglobal.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...

Nov 5 '07 #61
On Nov 4, 10:57 pm, Jerry Stuckle <jstuck...@attglobal.netwrote:
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.
Can you supply a URL to a site where you think is a great example if a
fluid design site?

Nov 5 '07 #62
On Nov 4, 11:32 pm, Jerry Stuckle <jstuck...@attglobal.netwrote:
Nope, you're just trying to change the subject, turning it away from
questions you can't answer.
OH GOD!!!! Another mystery question.... It's the "The ghost who
never lies..." (Family Guy fans will understand that...)
I've finally come to the conclusion you're just a stoopid troll.
<plonk>
This is a good thing...

Nov 5 '07 #63
On Nov 5, 6:11 am, Jerry Stuckle <jstuck...@attglobal.netwrote:
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.
Plonk me PLEASE for the love of God PLONK ME!!!!

Nov 5 '07 #64
Travis Newbury wrote:
On Nov 5, 6:11 am, Jerry Stuckle <jstuck...@attglobal.netwrote:
>>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.

Plonk me PLEASE for the love of God PLONK ME!!!!

Stoopid troll. ROFLMAO!

--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.
js*******@attglobal.net
==================

Nov 5 '07 #65
Travis Newbury wrote:
On Nov 5, 6:11 am, Jerry Stuckle <jstuck...@attglobal.netwrote:
>>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.

Plonk me PLEASE for the love of God PLONK ME!!!!

It's funny. Incompetent asses like you can add nothing to the
conversation. Just like you haven't.

Just shows how big of a troll you are.

And no, I don't like to pick fights. I just don't put up with trolls,
assholes and idiots. And you match all three.

And you're even incompetent when you're a troll, asshole and idiot!

ROFLMAO!
--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.
js*******@attglobal.net
==================

Nov 5 '07 #66
On Nov 5, 6:38 am, Jerry Stuckle <jstuck...@attglobal.netwrote:
Plonk me PLEASE for the love of God PLONK ME!!!!
It's funny. Incompetent asses like you can add nothing to the
conversation. Just like you haven't.
Then stop replying to me
Just shows how big of a troll you are.
Then stop replying to me
And no, I don't like to pick fights. I just don't put up with trolls,
assholes and idiots. And you match all three.
Then stop replying to me
And you're even incompetent when you're a troll, asshole and idiot!
Then stop replying to me
Nov 5 '07 #67
Travis Newbury wrote:
On Nov 5, 6:38 am, Jerry Stuckle <jstuck...@attglobal.netwrote:
>>Plonk me PLEASE for the love of God PLONK ME!!!!
It's funny. Incompetent asses like you can add nothing to the
conversation. Just like you haven't.

Then stop replying to me
>Just shows how big of a troll you are.

Then stop replying to me
>And no, I don't like to pick fights. I just don't put up with trolls,
assholes and idiots. And you match all three.

Then stop replying to me
>And you're even incompetent when you're a troll, asshole and idiot!

Then stop replying to me
Hey, you're the asshole who had to show how big a fool you are is by
opening your big yap and allowing your lack of intelligence to spill
out! ROFLMAO!

--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.
js*******@attglobal.net
==================

Nov 5 '07 #68
On Nov 5, 6:46 am, Jerry Stuckle <jstuck...@attglobal.netwrote:
Hey, you're the asshole who had to show how big a fool you are is by
opening your big yap and allowing your lack of intelligence to spill
out! ROFLMAO!
You just can't do it can you Jerry?

Nov 5 '07 #69
rf
"Jerry Stuckle" <js*******@attglobal.netwrote in message
news:V4******************************@comcast.com. ..
Just shows how big of a troll you are.
The only troll I see here is you Stuckle.
Nov 5 '07 #70
"rf" <rf@invalid.comwrote:
>"Jerry Stuckle" <js*******@attglobal.netwrote in message
news:V4******************************@comcast.com ...
>Just shows how big of a troll you are.

The only troll I see here is you Stuckle.
Do trolls utilitise every opportunity to present the URL of their web
site? Or is there another popular name for such people...

Perhaps, like CSS and tables, the two are not mutually exclusive....

X
Nov 5 '07 #71
Travis Newbury wrote:
On Nov 5, 6:46 am, Jerry Stuckle <jstuck...@attglobal.netwrote:
>Hey, you're the asshole who had to show how big a fool you are is by
opening your big yap and allowing your lack of intelligence to spill
out! ROFLMAO!

You just can't do it can you Jerry?

ROFLMAO!

You're the troll who jumped into this conversation with nothing of use
to say.

Just like you never have anything constructive to add to a conversation.

--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.
js*******@attglobal.net
==================

Nov 5 '07 #72
rf wrote:
"Jerry Stuckle" <js*******@attglobal.netwrote in message
news:V4******************************@comcast.com. ..
>Just shows how big of a troll you are.

The only troll I see here is you Stuckle.
Ah, the trolls are coming out of the woodwork. Here's another one who's
too stoopid to have anything constructive to add to a conversation!

ROFLMAO!

--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.
js*******@attglobal.net
==================

Nov 5 '07 #73
dorayme wrote:
>
You are now just babbling trendy talk and being totally
imprecise.
Stuckle wrote:
><plonk>
Well, now you've gone and done it, haven't you?
<Plonk>ed by Luigi Donatello Aserio two years ago,
and now, just as your wounds have started to heal,
<plonk>ed by Jerry.

If you don't mind my asking a personal question,
which of these mucho machos gives better <plonk>?
:)


Nov 5 '07 #74
On Nov 5, 9:53 am, mbstevens <NOXwebmast...@xmbstevensx.comwrote:
If you don't mind my asking a personal question,
which of these mucho machos gives better <plonk>?
:)
LOL!!!!

Nov 5 '07 #75
On Nov 5, 9:26 am, Jerry Stuckle <jstuck...@attglobal.netwrote:
Prove me wrong and plonk me.
Spoken like the true troll you are! ROFLMAO!
This is just what I need to lighten my Monday!
bye bye now Jerry. If google let me plonk someone I would. You bore
me

Nov 5 '07 #76
On Nov 4, 6:16 pm, dorayme <doraymeRidT...@optusnet.com.auwrote:
In article <4uCdnaAAs5pvqLDanZ2dnUVZ_qXin...@comcast.com>,
Jerry Stuckle <jstuck...@attglobal.netwrote:
dorayme wrote:
In article <nIadnR_KOZMCgLDanZ2dnUVZ_v2pn...@comcast.com>,
Jerry Stuckle <jstuck...@attglobal.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
In response to the original posters questions and thoughts I believe
that it is in fact not the death of HTML as the W3C has just finished
gatharing a group of people together to work on a new update above the
HTML 4.01 that is the latest standard release of it. However, One of
the key engineers of Microsoft Internet Explorer is in a lead position
on that project. That could be a very bad thing considering that
Microsoft has publicly stated that their browser will Never Support
the mime type of application-xml . That being said Internet Explorer
will not support XHTML in the way it was created to be used it will
only change the mime type over to text/html which removes any of the
xml abilities from it.

As far as tables go you should still be using tables in your HTML
however only for tabular data or displaying of a chart or table and
not for other positioning. There is no reason to nest tables any
longer nor is there a reason to use tables to position images or even
blocks of text in appealing ways on a web page. Many of the elements
and tags of the old days are now deprecated and should no longer be
used in HTML however they have replacements in CSS.

I think overall it is a pretty good thing personally. Finally after
CSS has been around over 10 years it is starting to come of age and be
recognized as well as improving the web overall. You can make
navigation bars in CSS without images that function faster and do not
contain images yet appear to have a rollover effect that is faster
then JavaScript is.

I also believe it will eventually reduce the number of people out
there that just buy FrontPage and call themselves web designers
without actually knowing any code or programming. It is people of that
nature that have reduced the pay in this industry to a incredibly low
amount of money. Think about it most web designers are selling their
services for less then people will pay their auto mechanic to fix
their car. Most small business owners will try to build their web
sites on their own or higher a High school kid at minimum wage or less
to build them something on the web. Even if the Web designer has a
much higher education level then their auto mechanic.

As far as markup languages go both HTML and XHTML are here to stay.
However they will have to coexist with CSS from now on.

Nov 5 '07 #77
In alt.html Red E. Kilowatt <re***************@aww-faq.orgwrote:
Simple for you, maybe. I find CSS incomprehensible for anything beyond
specifying fonts and backgrounds, like trying to position boxes within
an overall layout.

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

I prefer web sites built with table-based layouts. I have trouble
reading the tiny, tiny fonts that are all the rage on the web these
days. I almost always increase the font size a step or two.

Table-based layouts seem to handle my font size increases without any
problems (for the most part).

CSS-based layouts seem to have trouble handling my font size
increases. This usually results in sections overlapping other
sections and, in many cases, some sections being completely obscured.
Sometimes, sections even vanish entirely, apparently being rendered
into some kind of void.

Right about now, I'm sure Ivory Tower types are blaming this on web
developers writing bad CSS or something. But the fact of the matter
is, if a tool makes it hard to do things right, then the tool should
probably be considered fundamentally broken.

As a result, I tend to consider CSS fundamentally broken for the task
of layout.
Nov 5 '07 #78
On Nov 5, 2:59 pm, Travis Newbury <TravisNewb...@hotmail.comwrote:
On Nov 5, 7:55 am, Jerry Stuckle <jstuck...@attglobal.netwrote:
>Hey, you're the asshole who had to show how big a fool you are is by
>opening your big yap and allowing your lack of intelligence to spill
>out! ROFLMAO!
You just can't do it can you Jerry?
Just like you never have anything constructive to add to a conversation.

Come on Jerry, plonk me. I want to plonk me, but you can't. You
can't because you are a loser. You have nothing to offer her
Excuse me for the interruption here, but I'm kind of intrigued ...

You keep talking about *her", just like rc (a.k.a. relentless crap)
constantly does.
Who is *She*?
Some kind of CSS Goddess?
Is *she* pretty?
And fluid?
Could I be introduced to *her*?

Thank you.

Nov 5 '07 #79
On Nov 5, 5:22 pm, Kevin <kevinlen...@lakeareawebs.comwrote:
On Nov 4, 6:16 pm, dorayme <doraymeRidT...@optusnet.com.auwrote:
In article <4uCdnaAAs5pvqLDanZ2dnUVZ_qXin...@comcast.com>,
Jerry Stuckle <jstuck...@attglobal.netwrote:
dorayme wrote:
In article <nIadnR_KOZMCgLDanZ2dnUVZ_v2pn...@comcast.com>,
Jerry Stuckle <jstuck...@attglobal.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

In response to the original posters questions and thoughts I believe
that it is in fact not the death of HTML as the W3C has just finished
gatharing a group of people together to work on a new update above the
HTML 4.01 that is the latest standard release of it. However, One of
the key engineers of Microsoft Internet Explorer is in a lead position
on that project. That could be a very bad thing considering that
Microsoft has publicly stated that their browser will Never Support
the mime type of application-xml . That being said Internet Explorer
will not support XHTML in the way it was created to be used it will
only change the mime type over to text/html which removes any of the
xml abilities from it.

As far as tables go you should still be using tables in your HTML
however only for tabular data or displaying of a chart or table and
not for other positioning. There is no reason to nest tables any
longer nor is there a reason to use tables to position images or even
blocks of text in appealing ways on a web page. Many of the elements
and tags of the old days are now deprecated and should no longer be
used in HTML however they have replacements in CSS.

I think overall it is a pretty good thing personally. Finally after
CSS has been around over 10 years it is starting to come of age and be
recognized as well as improving the web overall. You can make
navigation bars in CSS without images that function faster and do not
contain images yet appear to have a rollover effect that is faster
then JavaScript is.

I also believe it will eventually reduce the number of people out
there that just buy FrontPage and call themselves web designers
without actually knowing any code or programming. It is people of that
nature that have reduced the pay in this industry to a incredibly low
amount of money. Think about it most web designers are selling their
services for less then people will pay their auto mechanic to fix
their car. Most small business owners will try to build their web
sites on their own or higher a High school kid at minimum wage or less
to build them something on the web. Even if the Web designer has a
much higher education level then their auto mechanic.

As far as markup languages go both HTML and XHTML are here to stay.
However they will have to coexist with CSS from now on.
Right on, Kevin.

An oasis of sanity in a desert of gratuitous disqualifications.
Thank You
Nov 5 '07 #80
Travis Newbury wrote:
On Nov 5, 9:26 am, Jerry Stuckle <jstuck...@attglobal.netwrote:
>>Prove me wrong and plonk me.
Spoken like the true troll you are! ROFLMAO!
This is just what I need to lighten my Monday!

bye bye now Jerry. If google let me plonk someone I would. You bore
me

ROFLMAO! Why don't you get a REAL newsreader!

--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.
js*******@attglobal.net
==================

Nov 5 '07 #81
In article
<11*********************@19g2000hsx.googlegroups.c om>,
Travis Newbury <Tr***********@hotmail.comwrote:
On Nov 4, 8:51 pm, dorayme <doraymeRidT...@optusnet.com.auwrote:
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
I was - naively I guess - hoping to get him to define a few
things so that the exchanges could actually be a bit informative
to whoever might read them on usenet. I suspect he is simply not
prepared to do the hard work of rubbing some words together.

The fact is that many table layouts are very fluid in all sorts
of good senses. There are some deeper senses in which they are
not - to do with platform and device variations. And there are
other senses in which they are not as easy to update, rearrange
or adapt as templates. But none of this stuff is he interested in
even listing (never mind explaining), hurling abuse, saying as
little as possible and oozing hints of knowledge and authority is
more his game. And ever ready with his oft repeated accusations
of trolling by people who do not fall into line with him quietly.
There is indeed a strong argument that people like him have a
fair number of the characteristics of a troll than those he
accuses.

--
dorayme
Nov 5 '07 #82
On Nov 3, 10:49 am, Chaddy2222 <spamlovermailbox-
sicur...@yahoo.com.auwrote:
mic...@gmail.com wrote:
On Nov 3, 3:35 pm, 1001 Webs <1001w...@gmail.comwrote:
Every respected Web-authoring Guru says that.
This is the era of table-less design, CSS code, XHTML compliant
websites.
Separate layout from content.
There's no reason to use tables any more.
Everything can be done with CSS.
Tables are so 2002ish ...
Do you agree with that?
I don't.
I've run into many situations where I just couldn't achieve the
desired effect in different browsers without using tables.
But it could be that I'm not well versed on the intricacies of CSS ...
Tables are the easiest
If you need something simple use tables

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

- Show quoted text -
Sorry your 2 examples look clunky. You need to go back to tables. CSS
is a lot of hype. We need to start telling the yahoooos what our
compliants are not what they what it to be.

Nov 6 '07 #83

Heidi wrote:
Chaddy2222 wrote:
: It was a template I developed for my own sites.
: http://freewebdesign.awardspace.biz now is useing it.
: It should look a lot better as I changed a lot of things in the CSS.

I hope you can take constructive criticism...

The flash thingy for your portfolio is annoying. Why does the text have to
flip, roll, spin, or bounce oddly into place?
Heidi
Hmmm do you think it would look better if they all (meaning the text)
came in the same way? I believe I was thinking of doing that first.
--
Regards Chad. http://freewebdesign.awardspace.biz

Nov 7 '07 #84
On Nov 7, 6:39 am, Chaddy2222 <spamlovermailbox-sicur...@yahoo.com.au>
wrote:
Heidi wrote:
Chaddy2222 wrote:
: It was a template I developed for my own sites.
:http://freewebdesign.awardspace.biz now is useing it.
: It should look a lot better as I changed a lot of things in the CSS.
I hope you can take constructive criticism...
The flash thingy for your portfolio is annoying. Why does the text have to
flip, roll, spin, or bounce oddly into place?
Heidi

Hmmm do you think it would look better if they all (meaning the text)
came in the same way? I believe I was thinking of doing that first.
It would look better if you learned to use Flash in the first place.
It is just pathetic the way it looks.
Aren't you ashamed of showing off such a disgrace?

Nov 7 '07 #85
1001 Webs wrote:
On Nov 7, 6:39 am, Chaddy2222 <spamlovermailbox-sicur...@yahoo.com.au>
wrote:
>Heidi wrote:
>>Chaddy2222 wrote:
: It was a template I developed for my own sites.
:http://freewebdesign.awardspace.biz now is useing it.
: It should look a lot better as I changed a lot of things in the CSS.
I hope you can take constructive criticism...
The flash thingy for your portfolio is annoying. Why does the text have to
flip, roll, spin, or bounce oddly into place?
Heidi
Hmmm do you think it would look better if they all (meaning the text)
came in the same way? I believe I was thinking of doing that first.
It would look better if you learned to use Flash in the first place.
It is just pathetic the way it looks.
Aren't you ashamed of showing off such a disgrace?

You should get your own site in shape before criticizing others.

--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.
js*******@attglobal.net
==================

Nov 7 '07 #86
On Nov 7, 11:41 pm, Jerry Stuckle <jstuck...@attglobal.netwrote:
1001 Webs wrote:
On Nov 7, 6:39 am, Chaddy2222 <spamlovermailbox-sicur...@yahoo.com.au>
wrote:
Heidi wrote:
Chaddy2222 wrote:
: It was a template I developed for my own sites.
:http://freewebdesign.awardspace.biznow is useing it.
: It should look a lot better as I changed a lot of things in the CSS.
I hope you can take constructive criticism...
The flash thingy for your portfolio is annoying. Why does the text have to
flip, roll, spin, or bounce oddly into place?
Heidi
Hmmm do you think it would look better if they all (meaning the text)
came in the same way? I believe I was thinking of doing that first.
It would look better if you learned to use Flash in the first place.
It is just pathetic the way it looks.
Aren't you ashamed of showing off such a disgrace?

You should get your own site in shape before criticizing others.
I could not agree more.
I need to be honest here:
I can NOT believe that with the OP's lack of clue and understanding
about some rather fundamentall facts concerning website design that
he even expects to get payed for what he slaps together.
Baysicly, the OP is a hack, that's evident from the fact that he /
she / it uses third party templates.
Frankly if clients wanted third party templates, and CMS's they could
just install Joomla.
BTW, that's why I have not been much of a fan of the CMS packages I
have found, they are all reliant on templates that use very bloated
code.
--
Regards Chad. http://freewebdesign.awardspace.biz
Nov 7 '07 #87
Els
Chaddy2222 wrote:
BTW, that's why I have not been much of a fan of the CMS packages I
have found, they are all reliant on templates that use very bloated
code.
Have to correct you there, Chad - I use Joomla for clients all the
time, but in no way do I depend on templates with bloated code. I
write the templates myself, and replace tables with divs where needed.
Obviously, this does need quite a bit of customisation, but that's why
they pay me for it ;-)

--
Els http://locusmeus.com/
Nov 7 '07 #88
On Nov 8, 1:03 am, Els <els.aNOS...@tiscali.nlwrote:
Chaddy2222 wrote:
BTW, that's why I have not been much of a fan of the CMS packages I
have found, they are all reliant on templates that use very bloated
code.

Have to correct you there, Chad - I use Joomla for clients all the
time, but in no way do I depend on templates with bloated code. I
write the templates myself, and replace tables with divs where needed.
Obviously, this does need quite a bit of customisation, but that's why
they pay me for it ;-)
Yes, I must admit i'll be looking at template customisation very soon
in Joomla.
I just did not like the default templates in Mambo.
--
Regards Chad.

Nov 7 '07 #89
Els
Chaddy2222 wrote:
On Nov 8, 1:03 am, Els <els.aNOS...@tiscali.nlwrote:
>Chaddy2222 wrote:
>>BTW, that's why I have not been much of a fan of the CMS packages I
have found, they are all reliant on templates that use very bloated
code.

Have to correct you there, Chad - I use Joomla for clients all the
time, but in no way do I depend on templates with bloated code. I
write the templates myself, and replace tables with divs where needed.
Obviously, this does need quite a bit of customisation, but that's why
they pay me for it ;-)
Yes, I must admit i'll be looking at template customisation very soon
in Joomla.
I just did not like the default templates in Mambo.
Have a look at the new Joomla version, 1.5. Status is release
candidate at the moment, and it comes with two default templates, of
which one entirely accessible and tableless.

--
Els http://locusmeus.com/
Nov 7 '07 #90
On Nov 7, 2:03 pm, Els <els.aNOS...@tiscali.nlwrote:
Chaddy2222 wrote:
BTW, that's why I have not been much of a fan of the CMS packages I
have found, they are all reliant on templates that use very bloated
code.

Have to correct you there, Chad - I use Joomla for clients all the
time, but in no way do I depend on templates with bloated code. I
write the templates myself, and replace tables with divs where needed.
Obviously, this does need quite a bit of customisation, but that's why
they pay me for it ;-)

--
Els http://locusmeus.com/
How do you find Joomla! Els? I have a client wanting to use it, and I
was pushing them more in the direction of WordPress (which I have more
experience with). They currently have Joomla! but I really can't get
to grips with it!

Nov 7 '07 #91
Els
SpaceGirl wrote:
How do you find Joomla! Els? I have a client wanting to use it, and I
was pushing them more in the direction of WordPress (which I have more
experience with). They currently have Joomla! but I really can't get
to grips with it!
I've never used Wordpress, but Joomla is a piece of cake[*]. At the
same time though, I've now been using it for over a year, and I'm
still discovering handy features I didn't know about. (I guess that's
what you get for not reading manuals...)

______________[*] miles may differ ;-)

(fup to a.w.w)

--
Els http://locusmeus.com/
Nov 7 '07 #92
On Nov 7, 1:41 pm, Jerry Stuckle <jstuck...@attglobal.netwrote:
1001 Webs wrote:
On Nov 7, 6:39 am, Chaddy2222 <spamlovermailbox-sicur...@yahoo.com.au>
wrote:
Heidi wrote:
Chaddy2222 wrote:
: It was a template I developed for my own sites.
:http://freewebdesign.awardspace.biznow is useing it.
: It should look a lot better as I changed a lot of things in the CSS.
I hope you can take constructive criticism...
The flash thingy for your portfolio is annoying. Why does the text have to
flip, roll, spin, or bounce oddly into place?
Heidi
Hmmm do you think it would look better if they all (meaning the text)
came in the same way? I believe I was thinking of doing that first.
It would look better if you learned to use Flash in the first place.
It is just pathetic the way it looks.
Aren't you ashamed of showing off such a disgrace?

You should get your own site in shape before criticizing others.
You should get a website before attempting to even open your mouth,
you phony "instructor".
Hey people, Jerry Sucker does NOT have his own website.
That says it all, doesn't it?

Have you been able to "instruct" your dog at least.?
Can't even do that, can you?

Nov 7 '07 #93
On Nov 7, 2:58 pm, Chaddy2222 <spamlovermailbox-sicur...@yahoo.com.au>
wrote:
On Nov 7, 11:41 pm, Jerry Stuckle <jstuck...@attglobal.netwrote:
1001 Webs wrote:
On Nov 7, 6:39 am, Chaddy2222 <spamlovermailbox-sicur...@yahoo.com.au>
wrote:
>Heidi wrote:
>>Chaddy2222 wrote:
>>: It was a template I developed for my own sites.
>>:http://freewebdesign.awardspace.biznowis useing it.
>>: It should look a lot better as I changed a lot of things in the CSS.
>>I hope you can take constructive criticism...
>>The flash thingy for your portfolio is annoying. Why does the text have to
>>flip, roll, spin, or bounce oddly into place?
>>Heidi
>Hmmm do you think it would look better if they all (meaning the text)
>came in the same way? I believe I was thinking of doing that first.
It would look better if you learned to use Flash in the first place.
It is just pathetic the way it looks.
Aren't you ashamed of showing off such a disgrace?
You should get your own site in shape before criticizing others.

I could not agree more.
I need to be honest here:
I can NOT believe that with the OP's lack of clue and understanding
about some rather fundamentall facts concerning website design that
he even expects to get payed for what he slaps together.
Baysicly, the OP is a hack, that's evident from the fact that he /
she / it uses third party templates.
Frankly if clients wanted third party templates, and CMS's they could
just install Joomla.
BTW, that's why I have not been much of a fan of the CMS packages I
have found, they are all reliant on templates that use very bloated
code.
Hi moron,

here, have a look at some Flash created by me.
http://www.geocities.com/microlink_estepona/

don't like it really, but compared to yours it looks like "Halo 3"

Nov 7 '07 #94
1001 Webs wrote:
On Nov 7, 1:41 pm, Jerry Stuckle <jstuck...@attglobal.netwrote:
>1001 Webs wrote:
>>On Nov 7, 6:39 am, Chaddy2222 <spamlovermailbox-sicur...@yahoo.com.au>
wrote:
Heidi wrote:
Chaddy2222 wrote:
: It was a template I developed for my own sites.
:http://freewebdesign.awardspace.biznow is useing it.
: It should look a lot better as I changed a lot of things in the CSS.
I hope you can take constructive criticism...
The flash thingy for your portfolio is annoying. Why does the text have to
flip, roll, spin, or bounce oddly into place?
Heidi
Hmmm do you think it would look better if they all (meaning the text)
came in the same way? I believe I was thinking of doing that first.
It would look better if you learned to use Flash in the first place.
It is just pathetic the way it looks.
Aren't you ashamed of showing off such a disgrace?
You should get your own site in shape before criticizing others.

You should get a website before attempting to even open your mouth,
you phony "instructor".
Hey people, Jerry Sucker does NOT have his own website.
That says it all, doesn't it?
Nope, I don't have a website YOU KNOW ABOUT. My training company
doesn't need one - I've got more work than I want right now. I do have
other websites - but they have nothing to do with webmastering and I
don't advertise them.
Have you been able to "instruct" your dog at least.?
Can't even do that, can you?

Actually, my training company probably brought in more money last month
than you have all year.
--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.
js*******@attglobal.net
==================

Nov 7 '07 #95
Jerry Stuckle wrote:
1001 Webs wrote:
>On Nov 7, 1:41 pm, Jerry Stuckle <jstuck...@attglobal.netwrote:
Nope, I don't have a website YOU KNOW ABOUT. My training company
doesn't need one - I've got more work than I want right now. I do have
other websites - but they have nothing to do with webmastering and I
don't advertise them.
>Have you been able to "instruct" your dog at least.?
Can't even do that, can you?


Actually, my training company probably brought in more money last month
than you have all year.
Nice pissing contest guys! But it does really have anything to do with
the topic at hand, whether quality of design and skill translates to a
better web delivered product?
--
Take care,

Jonathan
-------------------
LITTLE WORKS STUDIO
http://www.LittleWorksStudio.com
Nov 7 '07 #96

"Chaddy2222" <sp***********************@yahoo.com.auwrote in message
news:11**********************@e34g2000pro.googlegr oups.com...
>
Heidi wrote:
>Chaddy2222 wrote:
: It was a template I developed for my own sites.
: http://freewebdesign.awardspace.biz now is useing it.
: It should look a lot better as I changed a lot of things in the CSS.

I hope you can take constructive criticism...

The flash thingy for your portfolio is annoying. Why does the text have
to
flip, roll, spin, or bounce oddly into place?
Heidi
Hmmm do you think it would look better if they all (meaning the text)
came in the same way? I believe I was thinking of doing that first.
Hey Chad,
How ya doing mate? Why are you concentrating on flash? I thought that would
move you away from the accessable aspect of your philosophy?

--
Paul Watt

http://www.paulwattdesigns.com
Nov 8 '07 #97

paul watt wrote:
"Chaddy2222" <sp***********************@yahoo.com.auwrote in message
news:11**********************@e34g2000pro.googlegr oups.com...

Heidi wrote:
Chaddy2222 wrote:
: It was a template I developed for my own sites.
: http://freewebdesign.awardspace.biz now is useing it.
: It should look a lot better as I changed a lot of things in the CSS.

I hope you can take constructive criticism...

The flash thingy for your portfolio is annoying. Why does the text have
to
flip, roll, spin, or bounce oddly into place?
Heidi
Hmmm do you think it would look better if they all (meaning the text)
came in the same way? I believe I was thinking of doing that first.

Hey Chad,
How ya doing mate? Why are you concentrating on flash? I thought that would
move you away from the accessable aspect of your philosophy?
Well, you perhaps have a point there Paul. As Flash is not widely as
accessible as it could be.
However I am only useing it for one particular section / feature of
the website and for what it does it works well.
I am also planning other
sections in particular an our sites type section where I will place
examples of my work and descriptions etc.
--
Regards Chad. http://freewebdesign.awardspace.biz

Nov 8 '07 #98

paul watt wrote:
"Chaddy2222" <sp***********************@yahoo.com.auwrote in message
news:11**********************@e34g2000pro.googlegr oups.com...

Heidi wrote:
Chaddy2222 wrote:
: It was a template I developed for my own sites.
: http://freewebdesign.awardspace.biz now is useing it.
: It should look a lot better as I changed a lot of things in the CSS.

I hope you can take constructive criticism...

The flash thingy for your portfolio is annoying. Why does the text have
to
flip, roll, spin, or bounce oddly into place?
Heidi
Hmmm do you think it would look better if they all (meaning the text)
came in the same way? I believe I was thinking of doing that first.

Hey Chad,
How ya doing mate?
<snip>
Hay again Paul, I am doing quite well. I finished my final Uni exam
for the year today (well yesterday now I guess.
I am also working on a re-design of the Web Design Tips Online
project, soon to be officially launched.
I am also launching my new domain name on Monday
(freewebdesignonline.org).
How are you going anyway, have you got more business yet?.
--
Regards Chad.

Nov 8 '07 #99
"paul watt" <pa**@NOSPAMpaulwatt.infowrote:
>Hey Chad,
How ya doing mate? Why are you concentrating on flash? I thought that would
move you away from the accessable aspect of your philosophy?

You may be considering accessible only through terms of visual
impairment. Children and possibly therefore those with learning
difficulties, often find pictures, and by extenson, Flash more
accessible than plain text.

Similarly the deaf; those born profoundly death may not have learned a
spoken language (English, Spanish, German etc) toa high level, and as
such may find pictures easier to comprehend than written words.

Matt

--
Author of The Probert Encyclopaedia
http://www.probertencyclopaedia.com

Nov 8 '07 #100

This discussion thread is closed

Replies have been disabled for this discussion.

Similar topics

3 posts views Thread by Phong Ho | last post: by
27 posts views Thread by Michael C | last post: by
59 posts views Thread by Lennart Björk | last post: by
40 posts views Thread by VK | last post: by
1 post views Thread by CARIGAR | last post: by
reply views Thread by zhoujie | last post: by
reply views Thread by suresh191 | last post: by
1 post views Thread by Marylou17 | last post: by
By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.