Posted by Bernhard Sturm on 01/08/06 15:59

Jonathan N. Little wrote:
> Chaddy2222 wrote:
> <snip>
>
>> Hmmm.
>> Maybe take a look at http://www.w3.org
>> I personally use Tables for layout, mainly because they are easyer,
>> well kind of.
>
> <snip>
>
> Sorry to rag, but looking at your site that firstly does use tables for
> layout that could very easily be handled with CSS and secondly purports
> to do web design but your code sir? What are you using to code?
>
> <h2><font size="+2">
> Welcome TO
> FreeWeb Design Online!! </font></h2><h2></h2><font size="+2">
> </font><small><font face="Arial" size="+2"><small>
>
> Let's overlook the attempt to scale the H2 element with the FONT
> element, what bothers me is code like the empty H2, FONT elements and
> the nonsensical *<small><font face="Arial" size="+2"><small>*

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 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.

cheers
bernhard

--
www.daszeichen.ch
remove nixspam to reply

----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

[Back to original message]