-
Richard Wayne Garganta
Guest
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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
-
Richard Wayne Garganta
Guest
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.
-
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?
-
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>
-
Richard Wayne Garganta
Guest
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.
-
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>
>
>
-
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
-
Forum Rules