-
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/
-
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/
-
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
-
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/
-
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/
-
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/
-
Richard Wayne Garganta
Guest
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.
-
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.
-
Richard Wayne Garganta
Guest
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.
-
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
-
Forum Rules