|
|
Posted by Gιrard Talbot on 01/08/06 21:11
Malte Christensen wrote :
> Bernhard Sturm wrote:
>
>> Jonathan N. Little wrote:
>>
>> this is a perfect example to demonstrate that valid HTML (the page we
>> are discussing here validates as 'valid HTML 4.01'!) does not mean
>> that the page is semantically valid. The source code above is not
>> structured and semantically questionable if not completely wrong.
I absolutely agree with what J. Little writes exactly here. Your
webpage, Malte, is very poorly structured, is semantically wrong and
does not show an example of good, sound webpage design. Using table to
layout elements in a webpage when there is no tabular data involved is
bad semantic to begin with, even though it might be using valid markup code.
I
>> doubt whether the author of such a source has understood the concept
>> of separating layout from structure, and hence renders the discussion
>> 'table-layout vs. CSS-tableless layout' useless.
>
>
> As I said initially, I wasn't out to start a war ;-)
We're not at war either: we're talking, discussing in a newsgroup
discussion without making insults, bashing, personal/ad hominem remarks,
you know.
> I read all of the responses, went to all the sites, and made up my mind
> to use CSS.
Which sites did you go?
> The interim results after 3 hours are at www.nmalte.dk. I am very
> pleased with the clarity that this design results in, even if probably
> everything could be improved.
You're using nested tables at nmalte.dk site! It's even worse than plain
table use for layout. Converting such site into a CSS flexible/fluid 2
column design would be easy.
That I am not exactly a graphics designer
> is also clear...
We're not either: what's the point anyway?
But heck, writing Java code is more fun anyway :-)
>
> Constructive criticism always welcome. My mail address is on the site.
http://www.gtalbot.org/NvuSection/NvuWebDesignTips/WebDesignResources.html#CSSWebpageTemplates
GΓ©rard
--
remove blah to email me
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|