Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 38

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

  1. #11
    Karl Strieby
    Guest

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

    Waterspider wrote:
    > "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?


    Hi Waterspider,

    Nowadays, the only good reason to use an html table is to present
    content that makes no sense in any other format than table rows and
    columns. Like output from a database...

    Pre-web-2.0, HTML tables were popularly used (or kludged) as a
    positioning tool for any kind of content. NOF versions 2 and 3 were the
    best in the business at that design methodology.

    IMHO, using HTML tables for design presentation of non-tabular data is
    an antiquated means to achieve ends better done with CSS-styled and
    positioned <div>s. NOF may get there someday.

    --
    Cheers,
    Karl

    http://www.k-c-p.com/

  2. #12
    Karl Strieby
    Guest

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

    Nancy O wrote:

    > Fixed Layouts. But I don't recommend it.
    >
    > --Nancy


    Hi Nancy,

    Good recommendation: NOF's "Fixed" layouts use (of all things "fixed"
    positioning) of <divs>.

    The "leap of faith" required to make NOF produce more modern code is to
    *modify* the way NOF positions its <div>s from "fixed" to "relative" and
    to learn how modern CSS works...

    Gad, even Microsoft "gets" this stuff...Their "Expression Web" is a huge
    improvement over Front Rage in that it knows how to design with <div>s
    and CSS and doesn't barf out lots of invalid code in the process.

    --
    Cheers,
    Karl

    http://www.k-c-p.com/

  3. #13
    Waterspider
    Guest

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


    "Karl Strieby" <karlDOTstrieby@kDASHcDASHp.com> wrote ...
    > Waterspider wrote:
    >> "John" <john@hotmail.com> 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...

    >>
    >> Would there be another reason to use a table?

    >
    > Hi Waterspider,
    > Nowadays, the only good reason to use an html table is to present content
    > that makes no sense in any other format than table rows and columns. Like
    > output from a database...
    > Pre-web-2.0, HTML tables were popularly used (or kludged) as a positioning
    > tool for any kind of content. NOF versions 2 and 3 were the best in the
    > business at that design methodology.
    > IMHO, using HTML tables for design presentation of non-tabular data is an
    > antiquated means to achieve ends better done with CSS-styled and
    > positioned <div>s. NOF may get there someday.
    > Cheers,
    > Karl
    > http://www.k-c-p.com/


    Hi Karl,

    Thanks for your reply; sounds logical.
    I had a look at your site, and really like the content and style of writing.

    Waterspider



  4. #14
    Karl Strieby
    Guest

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

    <snip>
    > Hi Karl,
    >
    > Thanks for your reply; sounds logical.
    > I had a look at your site, and really like the content and style of writing.
    >
    > Waterspider



    Thanks :-).

    I have often wondered if I am a lone voice in the NOF community
    advocating that the product should produce more modern, CSS-driven,
    table-free page layouts.

    I will be moderately interested in seeing where (or not) NOF goes with
    this. All my new web development the last couple of years has come from
    Dreamweaver, and I've been dabbling with ColdFusion and database-driven
    content more lately. Very powerful stuff :-).

    --
    Cheers,
    Karl

    http://www.k-c-p.com/

  5. #15
    Nancy O
    Guest

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

    Karl,
    You are NOT a lone voice here. I've been beggin' for this since ver 8. And
    I was really hoping 10 would prove to be the holy grail but it fell way
    short of my CSS-P expectations. I and many others who used to frequent
    these groups like Lucian, Michael E, Rammie & Wayne have jumped over to DW
    too.

    To put it another way, if anyone values their Search Engine rankings (and
    who doesn't these days?) you have to have valid code and text based
    navigation for robots to follow. One misstep can cost you.

    http://groups.google.com/group/only-...eck-list?hl=en

    Table based layouts are on the way out. You can get away with using them,
    sure. But if you do, they MUST be styled correctly using CSS and NOT html.
    So if you've got to use CSS to style the tables anyway, you should be using
    div for your layouts. This seems like a no brainer to me but maybe I'm Abby
    Normal.

    -Nancy



    "Karl Strieby" <karlDOTstrieby@kDASHcDASHp.com> wrote in message
    news:f1eg2g$7ir3@flsun90netnews01.netobjects.com.. .
    > <snip>
    > > Hi Karl,
    > >
    > > Thanks for your reply; sounds logical.
    > > I had a look at your site, and really like the content and style of

    writing.
    > >
    > > Waterspider

    >
    >
    > Thanks :-).
    >
    > I have often wondered if I am a lone voice in the NOF community
    > advocating that the product should produce more modern, CSS-driven,
    > table-free page layouts.
    >
    > I will be moderately interested in seeing where (or not) NOF goes with
    > this. All my new web development the last couple of years has come from
    > Dreamweaver, and I've been dabbling with ColdFusion and database-driven
    > content more lately. Very powerful stuff :-).
    >
    > --
    > Cheers,
    > Karl
    >
    > http://www.k-c-p.com/




  6. #16
    Karl Strieby
    Guest

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

    Nancy O wrote:
    > Karl,
    > You are NOT a lone voice here. I've been beggin' for this since ver 8. And
    > I was really hoping 10 would prove to be the holy grail but it fell way
    > short of my CSS-P expectations. I and many others who used to frequent
    > these groups like Lucian, Michael E, Rammie & Wayne have jumped over to DW
    > too.
    >
    > To put it another way, if anyone values their Search Engine rankings (and
    > who doesn't these days?) you have to have valid code and text based
    > navigation for robots to follow. One misstep can cost you.
    >
    > http://groups.google.com/group/only-...eck-list?hl=en
    >
    > Table based layouts are on the way out. You can get away with using them,
    > sure. But if you do, they MUST be styled correctly using CSS and NOT html.
    > So if you've got to use CSS to style the tables anyway, you should be using
    > div for your layouts. This seems like a no brainer to me but maybe I'm Abby
    > Normal.
    >
    > -Nancy


    Hi Nancy,

    Thanks for the kind words of encouragement. I haven't been very active
    on the newsgroups lately, too busy. It's nice to hear from you here as
    willing to stick up for a fellow NOF refugee to the Macrodobe camp.

    Something tells me you know a '70s vintage Mel Brooks movie called
    "Young Frankenstein" -- am I right? <g>

    "That's FrankenSTEEN" ... "That's EYEgor" ... "Wait, wasn't that hump on
    the other side?" ... "What Hump?" "Abby Normal" (Eyegore fetches the
    brain labled ABNORMAL off the preserved sample shelf for the project...)

    <grin>
    --
    Cheers,
    Karl

    http://www.k-c-p.com/

  7. #17
    Richard Wayne Garganta
    Guest

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

    Karl Strieby wrote:
    > Nancy O wrote:
    >> Karl,
    >> You are NOT a lone voice here. I've been beggin' for this since ver
    >> 8. And
    >> I was really hoping 10 would prove to be the holy grail but it fell way
    >> short of my CSS-P expectations. I and many others who used to frequent
    >> these groups like Lucian, Michael E, Rammie & Wayne have jumped over
    >> to DW
    >> too.
    >>
    >> To put it another way, if anyone values their Search Engine rankings (and
    >> who doesn't these days?) you have to have valid code and text based
    >> navigation for robots to follow. One misstep can cost you.
    >>
    >> http://groups.google.com/group/only-...eck-list?hl=en
    >>
    >>
    >> Table based layouts are on the way out. You can get away with using
    >> them,
    >> sure. But if you do, they MUST be styled correctly using CSS and NOT
    >> html.
    >> So if you've got to use CSS to style the tables anyway, you should be
    >> using
    >> div for your layouts. This seems like a no brainer to me but maybe I'm
    >> Abby
    >> Normal.
    >>
    >> -Nancy

    >
    > Hi Nancy,
    >
    > Thanks for the kind words of encouragement. I haven't been very active
    > on the newsgroups lately, too busy. It's nice to hear from you here as
    > willing to stick up for a fellow NOF refugee to the Macrodobe camp.
    >
    > Something tells me you know a '70s vintage Mel Brooks movie called
    > "Young Frankenstein" -- am I right? <g>
    >
    > "That's FrankenSTEEN" ... "That's EYEgor" ... "Wait, wasn't that hump on
    > the other side?" ... "What Hump?" "Abby Normal" (Eyegore fetches the
    > brain labled ABNORMAL off the preserved sample shelf for the project...)
    >
    > <grin>

    Ah HA! I finally got the answer to my question.

  8. #18
    Bikeman
    Guest

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

    Creating new websites with tables is now just madness.

    NOF10 is way obsolete stiocking with tables and it doesn't even write valid
    xhtml or css. Even http://www.netobjects.co.uk/index.html hopelessly fails
    W3Cs validators.



  9. #19
    Richard Wayne Garganta
    Guest

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

    Bikeman wrote:
    > Creating new websites with tables is now just madness.
    >
    > NOF10 is way obsolete stiocking with tables and it doesn't even write valid
    > xhtml or css. Even http://www.netobjects.co.uk/index.html hopelessly fails
    > W3Cs validators.
    >
    >


    The reality is this -
    1. Standards still have a way to go
    2. Table support is not and never will be eliminated from browsers
    3. The proper DTD will ALWAYS result in proper display
    4. As every expert in standards admits - display issues remain AND
    tables can still accomplish things CSS cannot - like true 3d borders
    that really raise off the page.
    5. The whole standards idea is great but not totally "soup" yet and the
    reality is if a client sees what they want to see, they couldn't care
    less how it is accomplished.
    6. There is a snobbery regarding standards that makes it sound like
    nothing else will show up correctly except validated CSS and XHTML and
    that is simply NOT true and won't be true for a LONG time to come if at all.
    7. Regarding the disabilities issue - I know of deaf, blind and
    crippled that can access computers now and have been doing so for many
    years.
    8. Programming with standards STILL requires hoops and workarounds for
    this or that. I was using them last night when an unwanted change was
    made in layout for no known reason. The solution? Don't use what you
    are supposed to be able to use.
    9. Even HTML 4.01 IS a standard, CAN be validated and isn't going anywhere.

  10. #20
    Bikeman
    Guest

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

    What utter rubbish:

    Standards = accessibility = future proof

    You can''t rely upon DTD to sort out your ills for ever - browsers will move
    on without you.
    Clean xhtml/css code doesn't require workaround for browsers.

    CSS allows content to be seperated from presentation which affords the
    following:

    - Tables restrict accessibility for blind people by upsetting text readers.
    - CSS allows placement of content at top of page so search engines can see
    your content better and so rank you more easily.
    - CSS allows the use of style sheets so that site scan be redesigned very
    very quickly - some sites even use this to allow the site visitor to select
    the style they like on the fly.
    - CSS therefore allows future modifications and even complete redesigns to
    be done very easily.
    - CSS allows pages to deliver to multiple user agents - e.g screen,
    PDAs/mobile phones, Print.
    - CSS pages are smaller and so download quicker.
    - CSS allows pages to degrade nicely in older browsers - tables have a fixed
    presentation.
    - CSS allows easier building of fluid pages to cater for future screen
    dimensions
    - CSS streamlines website production - designers and and content managers
    can work independently.

    I was like you once and fooled myself with statements like 'why do I need
    faster loading pages, everyone now has broadband'. But eventually it clicked
    what CSS was all about and once I understood CSS, I have personally never
    had a problem replicating anything I could do with tables in CSS, including
    3D page boarders and backgrounds.




Posting Permissions

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