|
Posted by Alan J. Flavell on 04/15/06 22:11
On Fri, 14 Apr 2006, rfr launched forth, atop a comprehensive quote
(always a warning sign on usenet):
> It is still faster, more cross-browser reliable to use tables as a
> means to handle the layout placement / display of material.
Oh, quite. "What the author sees is exactly what everyone must get",
no matter what their browsing situation or needs. That's just what
the WWW does NOT need.
If you're so locked in to Only One True Layout for your content, maybe
you'd be happier with PDF? This isn't how the web was meant to work,
and at last (after some wasted years being side-tracked by
presentational pseudo-HTML), we're increasingly able to Do It Right,
and not have to make do with techniques which were designed for quite
something else (in this case: tables for expressing relationships
between data).
> And there are more tools availble to accomplish this with tables
> than with divs.
If I need a screwdriver, should I be pleased to be told that there's
an ample choice of hammers?
> So, all you purists, while technically exact, are missing the point.
Pot, kettle, black.
> Tables work!
Only too true. These misguided one-size-forced-to-fit-all designs
insist on "working" - in the sense of trying to impose what the author
saw in his/her authoring situation - no matter how inappropriate that
may be to each and every user's own browsing situation and needs.
But, as has been known for a long time now, "force" doesn't really
work on the WWW. It may give some misguided authors a feeling of
power to think that they are specifying an exact visual result - but
that isn't what really happens when their stuff gets out into a
general WWW context.
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|