Page 1 of 4 1234 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 38

Thread: Why not use pure CSS? How important is "validation?"

  1. #1
    Richard Wayne Garganta
    Guest

    Default Why not use pure CSS? How important is "validation?"

    As I understand it, a page will not validate with background sounds,
    javascript and flash.
    1.am I correct?
    2.what are the arguments for or against getting rid of tables in favor
    of pure CSS and
    3. what the heck is the difference between regular markup and the
    constant barrage of <div> tags I see in "validated" sites?
    NO RIOTS PLEASE!
    I just read Zeldmans book and half way through I was all for validated
    pages and the more I read about "exceptions and browser differences" the
    more untimely the whole idea seemed.

  2. #2
    Nejc
    Guest

    Default Re: Why not use pure CSS? How important is "validation?"

    1. You are correct.
    2. IMHO tables rule.
    3. Validation has some intrinsic rules. In my oppinnion they are not alpha
    and omega for web publishing.



    "Richard Wayne Garganta" <richinri@cox.net> wrote in message
    news:f0kfr5$56j1@flsun90netnews01.netobjects.com.. .
    > As I understand it, a page will not validate with background sounds,
    > javascript and flash.
    > 1.am I correct?
    > 2.what are the arguments for or against getting rid of tables in favor of
    > pure CSS and
    > 3. what the heck is the difference between regular markup and the constant
    > barrage of <div> tags I see in "validated" sites?
    > NO RIOTS PLEASE!
    > I just read Zeldmans book and half way through I was all for validated
    > pages and the more I read about "exceptions and browser differences" the
    > more untimely the whole idea seemed.




  3. #3
    Waterspider
    Guest

    Default Re: Why not use pure CSS? How important is "validation?"


    "Richard Wayne Garganta" <richinri@cox.net> wrote in message
    news:f0kfr5$56j1@flsun90netnews01.netobjects.com.. .
    > As I understand it, a page will not validate with background sounds,
    > javascript and flash.
    > 1.am I correct?
    > 2.what are the arguments for or against getting rid of tables in favor of
    > pure CSS and
    > 3. what the heck is the difference between regular markup and the constant
    > barrage of <div> tags I see in "validated" sites?



    Excellent questions. I look forward to the answers.



  4. #4
    John
    Guest

    Default Re: Why not use pure CSS? How important is "validation?"

    > 2.what are the arguments for or against getting rid of tables in favor of
    > pure CSS

    Using tables inextricably ties the content to the presentation and makes it
    difficult or impossible to present the content in a different way to
    disabled users, Printers, PDAs, Cellphones etc
    --
    John



  5. #5
    Richard Wayne Garganta
    Guest

    Default Re: Why not use pure CSS? How important is "validation?"

    John wrote:
    >> 2.what are the arguments for or against getting rid of tables in favor of
    >> pure CSS

    > Using tables inextricably ties the content to the presentation and makes it
    > difficult or impossible to present the content in a different way to
    > disabled users, Printers, PDAs, Cellphones etc
    > --
    > John
    >
    >

    I agree this is an issue. But I know a blind girl that can read all
    websites with software that operates like a powerful magnifying glass
    regardless of how the content is coded. The visual content is used.
    And, in this day and age, you don't see the elimination of flash,
    javascript and sounds as problematic? Pages will NOT validate with it.
    I have seen other disabled people use just the visual content using
    pointers that rival the accuracy of any mouse user.
    I observed someone's site last night with big banners advertising
    "VALIDATED CODE ONLY". In his code were LINES of code like this:
    if Ie5...
    if opera...
    if netscape....
    if ie7...
    I say the whole idea is NOT soup yet.
    and smaller displays will ALWAYS require coding to accommodate it and
    the pages will ALWAYS have to be coded differently than a regular page.
    I think the XML for that is WPM?
    So yes, I think the idea is sound but has a LONG way to go. Not to
    mention, even zeldman agrees that with a DTD the internet will ALWAYS
    adjust to whatever the code is for a LONG time to come.

  6. #6
    Waterspider
    Guest

    Default Re: Why not use pure CSS? How important is "validation?"


    "John" <john@hotmail.com> wrote in message
    news:f0lrmq$9p34@flsun90netnews01.netobjects.com.. .
    >> 2.what are the arguments for or against getting rid of tables in favor of
    >> pure CSS

    > Using tables inextricably ties the content to the presentation...


    Would there be another reason to use a table?



  7. #7
    Nancy O
    Guest

    Default Re: Why not use pure CSS? How important is "validation?"

    Hi Richard,

    1. Not true. But the use of deprecated code & tags will throw errors or
    warnings -- especially if used in Xhtml 1.0 doc types instead of html 4.0
    transitional doc types.

    Formerly, <applets> and <embed> tags were acceptable html. Now days you
    should use the <object> tag instead. To give you an example of valid
    markup-for a BG sound you would correctly use this code:

    <object data="soundfile.mid" codetype="audio/mid"> </object>

    It works in Gecko/Mozilla browsers but it is ignored by IE. So you have to
    use both the correct code and the deprecated code if you want all users to
    hear your sound. Personally, I never use BG sounds so this is all
    academic.

    JavaScript isn't strict xhtml and so it really should be placed in external
    js files. And for some reason NOF continues to use the deprecated tag of

    <script="javascript">

    instead of

    <script type="text/javascript" language="javascript">.

    in it's html pages. This further explains why NOF pages tend to throw
    warnings.

    Similarly, it's not Flash that causes validation errors, it's the deprecated
    html code calling Flash that causes problems.

    2 & 3:
    CSS-P for positioning elements with div tags was adopted by the W3C (www
    consortium) to produce leaner code, better accessibility,
    and better cross browser rendering - providing the major browsers supported
    it. It also allowed a much needed avenue for doing things in the absence of
    formerly valid table mark-up. In effect, what could be done with tables
    yesterday, needs to be done with <div> tags and CSS today.

    As we now know, not all browsers behave the same way which is why IE hacks
    or workarounds are commonly used by good web designers. But this isn't the
    W3C's fault. It's the fault of Microsoft and other lesser browsers who
    failed to keep up their end of the bargain.

    If you'll indulge me for a moment while I mix metaphors.... I live in
    Earthquake country. I support building regulations to make my community
    safer. But I resent it when I must get permits and county inspectors out to
    my house to "approve" a replacement water heater installation. Not a new
    fangled heater, mind you. Just a replacement of the old one.

    Well the W3C is aware of it's mandates and if you read articles on their web
    site to any extent, they are soft on enforcement of new guidelines. They
    are not the web police. But they feel, as I do, that we should all be
    playing by the same rules and strive to use valid markup whenever possible.
    Ultimately, this is much saner for the entire web community of builders and
    users.

    You can still use tables to position elements in your pages because modern
    browsers support it. But tables are so very limited compared to CSS styled
    <divisions>. Honestly, I don't think most web builders know how much
    control they're missing by NOT using <div>. If you did, you would abandon
    the use of table based layouts in a second.

    But let's say you only know how to build with tables. You're probably among
    the majority. Don't lament because you can have tables inside <div> and you
    can have <div> inside tables to increase your web building power.

    So my preference is this. Use tables if you must but learn how to use CSS
    styled divisions because they pick-up where table tags left off. Divisions
    are more flexible than tables ever were. And, they are the future of web
    design.

    You can't do this with Tables alone:

    Scrolling Divisions:
    http://alt-web.com/Tutorials/scrolling.html

    Centered Horizontal & Vertical Divisions:
    http://alt-web.com/Tutorials/hor_vert_center.html

    --Nancy
    www.alt-web.com/Tutorials

    Sorry for the rant

    <snipped to save space>



  8. #8
    Richard Wayne Garganta
    Guest

    Default Re: Why not use pure CSS? How important is "validation?"

    Nancy O wrote:
    > Hi Richard,
    >
    > 1. Not true. But the use of deprecated code & tags will throw errors or
    > warnings -- especially if used in Xhtml 1.0 doc types instead of html 4.0
    > transitional doc types.
    >
    > Formerly, <applets> and <embed> tags were acceptable html. Now days you
    > should use the <object> tag instead. To give you an example of valid
    > markup-for a BG sound you would correctly use this code:
    >
    > <object data="soundfile.mid" codetype="audio/mid"> </object>
    >
    > It works in Gecko/Mozilla browsers but it is ignored by IE. So you have to
    > use both the correct code and the deprecated code if you want all users to
    > hear your sound. Personally, I never use BG sounds so this is all
    > academic.
    >
    > JavaScript isn't strict xhtml and so it really should be placed in external
    > js files. And for some reason NOF continues to use the deprecated tag of
    >
    > <script="javascript">
    >
    > instead of
    >
    > <script type="text/javascript" language="javascript">.
    >
    > in it's html pages. This further explains why NOF pages tend to throw
    > warnings.
    >
    > Similarly, it's not Flash that causes validation errors, it's the deprecated
    > html code calling Flash that causes problems.
    >
    > 2 & 3:
    > CSS-P for positioning elements with div tags was adopted by the W3C (www
    > consortium) to produce leaner code, better accessibility,
    > and better cross browser rendering - providing the major browsers supported
    > it. It also allowed a much needed avenue for doing things in the absence of
    > formerly valid table mark-up. In effect, what could be done with tables
    > yesterday, needs to be done with <div> tags and CSS today.
    >
    > As we now know, not all browsers behave the same way which is why IE hacks
    > or workarounds are commonly used by good web designers. But this isn't the
    > W3C's fault. It's the fault of Microsoft and other lesser browsers who
    > failed to keep up their end of the bargain.
    >
    > If you'll indulge me for a moment while I mix metaphors.... I live in
    > Earthquake country. I support building regulations to make my community
    > safer. But I resent it when I must get permits and county inspectors out to
    > my house to "approve" a replacement water heater installation. Not a new
    > fangled heater, mind you. Just a replacement of the old one.
    >
    > Well the W3C is aware of it's mandates and if you read articles on their web
    > site to any extent, they are soft on enforcement of new guidelines. They
    > are not the web police. But they feel, as I do, that we should all be
    > playing by the same rules and strive to use valid markup whenever possible.
    > Ultimately, this is much saner for the entire web community of builders and
    > users.
    >
    > You can still use tables to position elements in your pages because modern
    > browsers support it. But tables are so very limited compared to CSS styled
    > <divisions>. Honestly, I don't think most web builders know how much
    > control they're missing by NOT using <div>. If you did, you would abandon
    > the use of table based layouts in a second.
    >
    > But let's say you only know how to build with tables. You're probably among
    > the majority. Don't lament because you can have tables inside <div> and you
    > can have <div> inside tables to increase your web building power.
    >
    > So my preference is this. Use tables if you must but learn how to use CSS
    > styled divisions because they pick-up where table tags left off. Divisions
    > are more flexible than tables ever were. And, they are the future of web
    > design.
    >
    > You can't do this with Tables alone:
    >
    > Scrolling Divisions:
    > http://alt-web.com/Tutorials/scrolling.html
    >
    > Centered Horizontal & Vertical Divisions:
    > http://alt-web.com/Tutorials/hor_vert_center.html
    >
    > --Nancy
    > www.alt-web.com/Tutorials
    >
    > Sorry for the rant
    >
    > <snipped to save space>
    >
    >


    Thank you for a great response. However even the king of standards
    Zeldman admitted in his book that the positioning of page elements is
    NOT as versatile in standards layouts. Your comment on bgsound is
    typical of what one runs into at almost every turn in programming a site
    with standards. I did one page with pure CSS and at times, for no
    knowable reason, some text lines disappear in very long articles. This
    never happened with table usage. I have not found that I can trust it
    yet, I don't care who is to blame. I want to do what I know will work
    without sacrificing interactivity or life in the websites.
    The standards sites that I have seen so far have a sterile, usually
    similar look, little to no animation and so far none use sound. In
    short, they are short on the "wow" factor. If they start to add life -
    they no longer validate. Even the W3 site didn't validate until it was
    made such a internet joke they had to do it.
    I repeat the concept is nice, but let's not pretend it is all that yet.
    It isn't.
    Everytime I talk to someone programming for it, a great deal of their
    time is figuring out and programming workarounds to browsers.
    Many thanks for your informative site!
    Lastly you mentioned all javascript should be external. Anything
    external means a speed hit - and this is exactly what standards were
    supposed to address.

  9. #9
    Chuck
    Guest

    Default Re: Why not use pure CSS? How important is "validation?"

    Hi Nancy

    Thanks for the informative post. I think I know the answer
    but is there any way to get NOF to build pages using div's
    and not tables?

    Chuck

    Nancy O wrote:
    > Hi Richard,
    >
    > 1. Not true. But the use of deprecated code & tags will throw errors or
    > warnings -- especially if used in Xhtml 1.0 doc types instead of html 4.0
    > transitional doc types.
    >
    > Formerly, <applets> and <embed> tags were acceptable html. Now days you
    > should use the <object> tag instead. To give you an example of valid
    > markup-for a BG sound you would correctly use this code:
    >
    > <object data="soundfile.mid" codetype="audio/mid"> </object>
    >
    > It works in Gecko/Mozilla browsers but it is ignored by IE. So you have to
    > use both the correct code and the deprecated code if you want all users to
    > hear your sound. Personally, I never use BG sounds so this is all
    > academic.
    >
    > JavaScript isn't strict xhtml and so it really should be placed in external
    > js files. And for some reason NOF continues to use the deprecated tag of
    >
    > <script="javascript">
    >
    > instead of
    >
    > <script type="text/javascript" language="javascript">.
    >
    > in it's html pages. This further explains why NOF pages tend to throw
    > warnings.
    >
    > Similarly, it's not Flash that causes validation errors, it's the deprecated
    > html code calling Flash that causes problems.
    >
    > 2 & 3:
    > CSS-P for positioning elements with div tags was adopted by the W3C (www
    > consortium) to produce leaner code, better accessibility,
    > and better cross browser rendering - providing the major browsers supported
    > it. It also allowed a much needed avenue for doing things in the absence of
    > formerly valid table mark-up. In effect, what could be done with tables
    > yesterday, needs to be done with <div> tags and CSS today.
    >
    > As we now know, not all browsers behave the same way which is why IE hacks
    > or workarounds are commonly used by good web designers. But this isn't the
    > W3C's fault. It's the fault of Microsoft and other lesser browsers who
    > failed to keep up their end of the bargain.
    >
    > If you'll indulge me for a moment while I mix metaphors.... I live in
    > Earthquake country. I support building regulations to make my community
    > safer. But I resent it when I must get permits and county inspectors out to
    > my house to "approve" a replacement water heater installation. Not a new
    > fangled heater, mind you. Just a replacement of the old one.
    >
    > Well the W3C is aware of it's mandates and if you read articles on their web
    > site to any extent, they are soft on enforcement of new guidelines. They
    > are not the web police. But they feel, as I do, that we should all be
    > playing by the same rules and strive to use valid markup whenever possible.
    > Ultimately, this is much saner for the entire web community of builders and
    > users.
    >
    > You can still use tables to position elements in your pages because modern
    > browsers support it. But tables are so very limited compared to CSS styled
    > <divisions>. Honestly, I don't think most web builders know how much
    > control they're missing by NOT using <div>. If you did, you would abandon
    > the use of table based layouts in a second.
    >
    > But let's say you only know how to build with tables. You're probably among
    > the majority. Don't lament because you can have tables inside <div> and you
    > can have <div> inside tables to increase your web building power.
    >
    > So my preference is this. Use tables if you must but learn how to use CSS
    > styled divisions because they pick-up where table tags left off. Divisions
    > are more flexible than tables ever were. And, they are the future of web
    > design.
    >
    > You can't do this with Tables alone:
    >
    > Scrolling Divisions:
    > http://alt-web.com/Tutorials/scrolling.html
    >
    > Centered Horizontal & Vertical Divisions:
    > http://alt-web.com/Tutorials/hor_vert_center.html
    >
    > --Nancy
    > www.alt-web.com/Tutorials
    >
    > Sorry for the rant
    >
    > <snipped to save space>
    >
    >


  10. #10
    Nancy O
    Guest

    Default Re: Why not use pure CSS? How important is "validation?"

    Fixed Layouts. But I don't recommend it.

    --Nancy


    "Chuck" <chuck@nospam.com> wrote in message
    news:f17o8r$dnp4@flsun90netnews01.netobjects.com.. .
    > Hi Nancy
    >
    > Thanks for the informative post. I think I know the answer
    > but is there any way to get NOF to build pages using div's
    > and not tables?
    >
    > Chuck
    >
    > Nancy O wrote:
    > > Hi Richard,
    > >
    > > 1. Not true. But the use of deprecated code & tags will throw errors

    or
    > > warnings -- especially if used in Xhtml 1.0 doc types instead of html

    4.0
    > > transitional doc types.
    > >
    > > Formerly, <applets> and <embed> tags were acceptable html. Now days

    you
    > > should use the <object> tag instead. To give you an example of valid
    > > markup-for a BG sound you would correctly use this code:
    > >
    > > <object data="soundfile.mid" codetype="audio/mid"> </object>
    > >
    > > It works in Gecko/Mozilla browsers but it is ignored by IE. So you have

    to
    > > use both the correct code and the deprecated code if you want all users

    to
    > > hear your sound. Personally, I never use BG sounds so this is all
    > > academic.
    > >
    > > JavaScript isn't strict xhtml and so it really should be placed in

    external
    > > js files. And for some reason NOF continues to use the deprecated tag

    of
    > >
    > > <script="javascript">
    > >
    > > instead of
    > >
    > > <script type="text/javascript" language="javascript">.
    > >
    > > in it's html pages. This further explains why NOF pages tend to throw
    > > warnings.
    > >
    > > Similarly, it's not Flash that causes validation errors, it's the

    deprecated
    > > html code calling Flash that causes problems.
    > >
    > > 2 & 3:
    > > CSS-P for positioning elements with div tags was adopted by the W3C (www
    > > consortium) to produce leaner code, better accessibility,
    > > and better cross browser rendering - providing the major browsers

    supported
    > > it. It also allowed a much needed avenue for doing things in the

    absence of
    > > formerly valid table mark-up. In effect, what could be done with tables
    > > yesterday, needs to be done with <div> tags and CSS today.
    > >
    > > As we now know, not all browsers behave the same way which is why IE

    hacks
    > > or workarounds are commonly used by good web designers. But this isn't

    the
    > > W3C's fault. It's the fault of Microsoft and other lesser browsers who
    > > failed to keep up their end of the bargain.
    > >
    > > If you'll indulge me for a moment while I mix metaphors.... I live in
    > > Earthquake country. I support building regulations to make my community
    > > safer. But I resent it when I must get permits and county inspectors

    out to
    > > my house to "approve" a replacement water heater installation. Not a

    new
    > > fangled heater, mind you. Just a replacement of the old one.
    > >
    > > Well the W3C is aware of it's mandates and if you read articles on their

    web
    > > site to any extent, they are soft on enforcement of new guidelines.

    They
    > > are not the web police. But they feel, as I do, that we should all be
    > > playing by the same rules and strive to use valid markup whenever

    possible.
    > > Ultimately, this is much saner for the entire web community of builders

    and
    > > users.
    > >
    > > You can still use tables to position elements in your pages because

    modern
    > > browsers support it. But tables are so very limited compared to CSS

    styled
    > > <divisions>. Honestly, I don't think most web builders know how much
    > > control they're missing by NOT using <div>. If you did, you would

    abandon
    > > the use of table based layouts in a second.
    > >
    > > But let's say you only know how to build with tables. You're probably

    among
    > > the majority. Don't lament because you can have tables inside <div> and

    you
    > > can have <div> inside tables to increase your web building power.
    > >
    > > So my preference is this. Use tables if you must but learn how to use

    CSS
    > > styled divisions because they pick-up where table tags left off.

    Divisions
    > > are more flexible than tables ever were. And, they are the future of

    web
    > > design.
    > >
    > > You can't do this with Tables alone:
    > >
    > > Scrolling Divisions:
    > > http://alt-web.com/Tutorials/scrolling.html
    > >
    > > Centered Horizontal & Vertical Divisions:
    > > http://alt-web.com/Tutorials/hor_vert_center.html
    > >
    > > --Nancy
    > > www.alt-web.com/Tutorials
    > >
    > > Sorry for the rant
    > >
    > > <snipped to save space>
    > >
    > >




Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •