G'day
Kenny Graham wrote:
Objects of type text/html (or application/xhtml+xml) are what I use. But
good luck getting them to work in IE. In my experience, IE will only do it
if it's a local (x)html file.
Works fine for me in Firefox and Opera 8. Works in IE6 Windows as well,
if served as
Umm, sorry Bert, Kenny's right. Totally unpredictable behavious of the
object tag in IE6.
Sometimes won't load, sometimes throws up a script error, and any JavaScript
that I have can't talk to it.
:o(
Any other suggestions?
R
- Original Message -
From: Bert Doorn [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Wed, 2005-09-07 at 12:39, Al Sparber wrote:
From: John Allsopp [EMAIL PROTECTED]
So the use of tables appears to be associated strongly with invalid
documents (and not only through poorly formed documents, but also
through the use of invalid attributes associated with td and tr
There's only one way I can think of making it work in IE:
Use PHP to copy the external page to a local files(s), and use
object to load it. IE doesn't seem to have a problem with
local html files. Not sure about scripting support for it
tho. This is the only situation when I don't use XHTML.
Good
G'day
This is called the web standards group. I imagine that those here
essentially adhere to the value of web standards, and discuss things
in this context.
And we are. Where in the standard does it say we are not *allowed* to
use even one table for layout?
3.3. of which says: Use
This is called the web standards group. I imagine that those here
essentially adhere to the value of web standards, and discuss things
in this context.
And we are.Where in the standard does it say we are not *allowed* to
use even one table for layout?
Tables should not be used to position
Dead Table Sketch
The cast:
MR. PRALINE
John Cleese
SHOP OWNER
Michael Palin
The sketch:
A customer enters a web development shop.
Mr. Praline: 'Ello, I wish to register a complaint.
(The owner does not respond.)
Mr. Praline: 'Ello, Miss?
At 11:37 PM 9/6/2005, Chris Blown wrote:
The mess that is tables - and here I mean a bunch of tables for layout -
can easily lead to broken markup, especially when you have to go back a
re-jig something, whether is easier than CSS/P doesn't matter, the fact
remains.
The problem is that browsers
G'day again :-)
http://www.w3.org/TR/2005/WD-WCAG20-HTML-TECHS-20050630/#layouttables
unless of course you would argue the difference between should not and
not allowed, in which case I guess you would win.
It's a working draft, not a recommendation or a standard and you're right. I used to
Not sure if this has been flagged up anywhere else, but I noticed the
barclays website has had a CSS makeover: http://www.barclays.co.uk/.
It's great to see a huge company like this hauling themselves into the
21st century web-wise, and maybe it will be a kick up the backside for
other less
Paul,
Hang on now. There's nothing about the use of table markup per se
that leads one to err more frequently.
on the contrary, actual research suggests very strongly that there is.
I have found a very high correlation between malformed documents and
the use of tables (with the errors
Bert,
It's a working draft, not a recommendation or a standard
Oh come on. This is precisely MS's ludicrous argument for not
supporting CSS2.1 (a subset of 2.0)
and you're right. I used to work as a QA Auditor (ISO9001). In
standards parlance, should not has a different meaning than
On 9/7/05 1:19 AM John Allsopp [EMAIL PROTECTED] sent this out:
The simple fact remains, that in my research into some of the biggest
and most popular Australian web sites, not a single site out of about
100 I have surveyed, which is table based has been valid. And the
errors in table based
Al,
With all due respect, that is not very good logic. So, someone
inexperienced enough to make an invalid table layout is going to
float right through the process of making a CSS-positioned layout?
That's quite a spin, John :-)
This is based on research into the web sites of dozens of
This thread is getting longer by the minute, but I enjoy the debate :-)
I have found a very high correlation between malformed documents and
the use of tables (with the errors occurring in direct association
with table code).
OK, you found a strong correlation, but are you drawing the
I have found a very high correlation between malformed documents and
the use of tables (with the errors occurring in direct association with
table code).
I guess that's what is one of the many annoying things about this
debate. Its very subjective. This particular thread started when I
Bert,
OK, you found a strong correlation, but are you drawing the right
conclusion?
1. How many were generated with a WYSIWYG editor?
Why would that matter. Not even the tools can get tables right?
2. How many were generated by some sort of server side script?
So script writers can;t
At 01:19 AM 9/7/2005, John Allsopp wrote:
Paul,
Hang on now. There's nothing about the use of table markup per se
that leads one to err more frequently.
on the contrary, actual research suggests very strongly that there is.
I have found a very high correlation between malformed documents
At 01:19 AM 9/7/2005, Chris Taylor wrote:
Not sure if this has been flagged up anywhere else, but I noticed the
barclays website has had a CSS makeover: http://www.barclays.co.uk/.
It's great to see a huge company like this hauling themselves into the
21st century web-wise, and maybe it will be
Paul,
It's not the correlation I'm questioning, it's the implied
causality. I hope you'll make a distinction between them in your
article.
I might be wrong, but I did not at any point argue that Tables cause
invalid documents. Not to say I couldn't, see below :-)
I said there was a
And a spot on 2c it is too!
Bob
www.gwelanmor-internet.co.uk
Seona Bellamy wrote:
[snip]
Standards / semantic code / CSS-P layouts / whatever else you want to
call them are just a tool. Tables for layout are another tool. The
mark of a good craftsman is understanding all the tools at
G'day
1. How many were generated with a WYSIWYG editor?
Why would that matter. Not even the tools can get tables right?
If a large portion of the sites' developers used a flawed tool, it
explains partly why a large portion of them had the same problems.
That's why it matters.
2. How
How about letting the table/div thread die? The debate is getting rather
tiring and it doesn't look like the argument will be resolved any time
soon. How about we agree to disagree for now?
Julie Romanowski
State Farm Insurance Company
J2EE Engagement Team
phone: 309-735-5248
cell: 309-532-4027
Hi,
I am having a problem getting a print stylesheet to work in Firefox 1.04
Win. It works in opera and IE, but in Fireforx the home page doesn't
show up the images as expected. Actually, I have found the print preview
in most recent versions of Firefox to cause crashes regularly - anyone
On Wed, 2005-09-07 at 19:01 +0800, Bert Doorn wrote:
3. How recently had they been updated?
Why would that be in any way relevant?
If a site is 3-5 years old, do you expect it to be written in the new way?
I'm just going to pick on this point, because it's relatively open to
attack and
From: Bert Doorn [EMAIL PROTECTED]
G'day again :-)
Keep reading...
http://www.w3.org/TR/2005/WD-WCAG20-HTML-TECHS-20050630/#layouttables-avoid
It is *recommended* that authors not use the |table| element for
layout purposes *unless the desired effect absolutely cannot be
achieved using
From: John Allsopp [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I'm not evangelizing table-based layouts, although for real-world
clients they sometimes are the right choice.
I have yet to be convinced that clearly breaking the spirit and
letter of a number of web standards, and all the attendant other
costs
Joshua,
thank you for the link, I have been looking for this article for
several years (having read it all those years ago)
John
If you still believe this semantic paradigm is something new, take a
look at this article written in 1997. Yes, 1997.
How abiut this then:
div class=topBarGrad/div
div class=contentContainer
div class=contentContainerPad
div class=breadCrumbstrongUK/strong/div
div class=topTabs
div class=topTabsValign
Barclays (http://www.barclays.co.uk/accessibility/web_design.htm)
Designing the site for an 800x600 view so horizontal scrolling is not
required, even for users with small screens.
Interesting to see that in Firefox I have a horizontal scroll bar and
my resolution is 1280x1024 px
However, at
Exactly. Just because it validates doesn't mean it's semantic.
topBarGrad
topTabs
topTabsValign
- what if we move these away from the top. Then what?
contentContainerPad
- what if we remove the padding?
posAbsolute
- what if we change this to position:relative?
HTML elements should define the
On 9/7/05, Kris Khaira [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
- what if we move these away from the top. Then what?
What if you have a div with id brand which contains your company's
name in an h1 with id company_name? What if a later reorganization
of the site moves that h1 into a different container
thanks for the advice/suggestions. How do you add more than one background to a div? Or are you saying to combine theshadow and blue left column imagein photoshop? Not quite understanding that, sorry. Also, what about the right shadow image?
thanks,
On 9/7/05, Geoff Pack [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Chris Taylor wrote:
Not sure if this has been flagged up anywhere else, but I noticed the
barclays website has had a CSS makeover: http://www.barclays.co.uk/.
They also have some (brief) information about their design here:
http://www.barclays.co.uk/accessibility/web_design.htm
Chris Taylor
Hi,
Looking over the information at the following url:
(http://www.bridgewater.edu/~dhuffman/soc306/f02grp4/Martial%20Arts/
bushido__the_honor_code.htm)
I'm confused if the quest for cleaner mark-up would be better pursued
by an OL or DL?
C
John Allsopp wrote:
Paul,
Hang on now. There's nothing about the use of table markup per se
that leads one to err more frequently.
on the contrary, actual research suggests very strongly that there is.
I have found a very high correlation between malformed documents and
the use of tables
Bert Doorn wrote:
G'day again :-)
Keep reading...
http://www.w3.org/TR/2005/WD-WCAG20-HTML-TECHS-20050630/#layouttables-avoid
It is *recommended* that authors not use the |table| element for
layout
purposes *unless the desired effect absolutely cannot be achieved
using
CSS*.
*unless the
For instance, they'll put a ul inside a div id=menu, just so that they can style the ul, instead of just giving the ul itself an id.
I never really noticed this, but I tend to code this way too. Here's a
small sample i've been playing with:
div id=wrapper
div id=header
G'day
By what you're saying, I could simply have my outer wrapper for the
margins/bg stuff, and then the h1 id'ed to replicate the whole
header, and the ul id'ed to the nav list.
This makes sense.
div id=wrapper
h1 id=headerImage replaced title here/h1
...etc...
I'd even drop
Bert Doorn wrote:
I'd even drop id=header and just style the h1 element. Unless you use
more than one h1 per page...
Good point, Bert.
Time to put this mark-up on a diet.
**
The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See
Chris Kennon
Looking over the information at the following url:
(http://www.bridgewater.edu/~dhuffman/soc306/f02grp4/Martial%20Arts/
bushido__the_honor_code.htm)
I'm confused if the quest for cleaner mark-up would be better
pursued by an OL or DL?
Ah, Joe Clark had a cracker at last
James Gollan wrote:
The site address is
www.abbychambers.com
and the style sheet is:
www.abbychambers.com/themes/greenstripe/print.css
Also, if you are looking at the site, any general issues would be good
to know about.
FWIW: The emphasis seems to be on the designer rather than the painter
I am interesting in your thoughts on linearization. What it means and how
you apply it?
Thanks,
Stephen
--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.344 / Virus Database: 267.10.19/92 - Release Date: 07/09/2005
- Original Message -
From: Bert Doorn [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, September 07, 2005 9:09 AM
Keep reading...
http://www.w3.org/TR/2005/WD-WCAG20-HTML-TECHS-20050630/#layouttables-avoid
It is *recommended* that authors not use the |table| element for layout
purposes *unless the
I think you go through stages of CSS/XHTML maturity as you learn how to move
away from tables to table-less design.
Our first instinct is to use divs the same way we used tables. It feels safe
to load up the page with structural divs. That's ok, especially if it is
what helps you get from x to
Forgive me if I throw out another wild pitch.
If I want to simulate a screen reader visually, I use the fangs extension to
firefox. This translates the page into what a screenreader would read.
Example output of Zeldman.com
Page has seven headings and seventy-one links Jeffrey Zeldman Presents
Stevio wrote:
However, at what point do we say, we are better doing this layout in
tables rather than using complex CSS with various hacks? In terms of
future maintenance, the CSS solution will be more difficult due to
the complexity of the hacks and scripts.
I don't agree. As Kenny said, the
Geoff Pack wrote:
Some reasons for div-itis:
1. Columns. table cell = div is wrong, but usually columns = divs is
correct.
now we are really getting into semantics. i began designing via wysiwyg
and tables. when i made the change to html/css i was having problems
with positioning and
From: Thierry Koblentz [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Stevio wrote:
However, at what point do we say, we are better doing this layout
in
tables rather than using complex CSS with various hacks? In terms
of
future maintenance, the CSS solution will be more difficult due to
the complexity of the hacks and
You could make the page background one pixel wide, and the column background 1 pixel high... that should cut off a few kb's.
- Christian
Al Sparber wrote:
I don't agree. As Kenny said, the presentational hacks are part of
the
presentational layer.
It is easier to detach a Styles Sheet from a document than to remove
its
table markup.
These debates always sink into a tables versus CSS mentality and that
is really sad. The
My guess is that more than one person worked on the redesign, but not
everyone knew what they were doing. That might be where the mistakes
come in. Still, they are really amateur mistakes. Seems unfair that I
can't get anyone to pay me to do clean, standards based design, but
these clowns cashed
Andreas Boehmer [Addictive Media] wrote:
I then thought I should use input type=image, but realised that this
doesn't work in all browsers. IE, for example, has got the nasty habbit of
submitting name.x=0name.y=0 when these kind of buttons are clicked, which
can make it really difficult if you
Stevio wrote:
I am interesting in your thoughts on linearization. What it means and
how you apply it?
For all intents and purposes, linearisation = source order.
If you have something like a screenreader, it will read things in the
order in which they appear in the source code. If you a) use
From: Thierry Koblentz [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I don't agree. As Kenny said, the presentational hacks are part of
the
presentational layer.
It is easier to detach a Styles Sheet from a document than to
remove
its
table markup.
These debates always sink into a tables versus CSS mentality and
that
Hello all,
I've been holding back with this, as I've said it before and I can hear
the yawns from some of the longer suffering members . . .
OK, I don't use tables, except for tabular data. I've been doing this
standards stuff for for just one year and there is only one place where
I use a
Patrick H. Lauke said:
Stevio wrote:
I am interesting in your thoughts on linearization. What it means and
how you apply it?
For all intents and purposes, linearisation = source order.
When applied to tables the thing to watch for is how the association
between discrete bits of columnar
Perhaps this is the crux of the matter. Most things can be achieved with
CSS, especially if you use various hacks and scripts etc. However, at what
point do we say, we are better doing this layout in tables rather than
using
complex CSS with various hacks? In terms of future maintenance, the
Good topic. I'm going to re-think the whole approach on this project.
My work here is done. Now I can go get some Krystals (eg.
Whitecastles + Mustard - Holes in meat) and say to myself I might not
know what I'm eating, but at least my pet peeve is silenced for the
moment.
It doesn't actually validate. (watch wrap)
http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.barclays.co.uk%2Fpremier%2Fcharset=%28detect+automatically%29doctype=Inlineverbose=1
*unless the desired effect...*
Why fighting the medium?
If that *desire effect* is purely visual, then I think there is a problem...
Yep, they're called 'Clients' :)
Paul
**
The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See
I wouldn't lose any sleep over which is
the most semantic way, as it can get fairly academic...
But that's why I love this list. Even the smallest things get academic
very quickly here. To get to the semantic root of it, ask yourself
Does each subitem function as a definition of its parent?
If
I'd say that people who rely heavily on tables are the ones who obviously do
not care
about standards.
Or they just DON'T KNOW.
I work in an organisation where our only other coder hasn't been formally
trained, was thrown into intranet work out of necessity and has learnt 'web
stuff' by
Hi David,
thanks for the feedback. I have to agree that the text, particularly on
the home page, lacks contrast. I will look to make it a little darker.
As for the emphasis being on the designer rather than the painter, I
don't feel this was the case. The painter was very involved during the
Stephen,
I like this list in that people are so willing to debate the
issues, as that is how we learn and understand what is best, but I
think we should not blindly use CSS. We must use it wisely and
examine how we are using it so we don't make new mistakes.
using CSS is not a blind or
It's not our fault we have to hack IE.
This guy claims he solved the problem. The example used 3 divs, the
clean version is at the bottom of the page. Worked in IE for me :D
http://www.jakpsatweb.cz/css/css-vertical-center-solution.htmlOn 9/7/05, designer
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hello
THREAD CLOSED
The reason for the closure of this thread is that while it had been
interesting and informative, it has definitely moved away from open
discussion into strongly held views and lines of demarcation.
Please do not reply to this thread or comment on the thread closure to the
list. If
Standards compliance needs to be built into RFP's from the get-go and then enforced by companies who pay the web-dev's.
Exactly. I was actually thinking the other day, browsers
should be more like compilers... they should refuse to parse incorrect
code. Then the enforcement would be on the
by-the-by: I am a web development student at Yeronga
TAFE college in Brisbane, Australia. One of my instructors has never heard of
DOCTYPE, refuses to put tags in lowercase and also refuses to close p,
'cause they don't need to be closed.
From: Christian Montoya
[mailto:[EMAIL
Exactly. I was actually thinking the other day, browsers
should be more like compilers... they should refuse to
parse incorrect
code. Then the enforcement would be
on the output end, too.
It would be nice, but would only work if -every- browser did it.
Otherwise the general opinion would be
On 8 Sep 2005, at 8:59 AM, Craig Rippon wrote:
by-the-by: I am a web development student at Yeronga TAFE college in
Brisbane, Australia. One of my instructors has never heard of DOCTYPE,
refuses to put tags in lowercase and also refuses to close p, 'cause
they don't need to be closed.
The only example of purely efficient structural markup I've seen inthe past few years is this:
http://www.projectseven.com/tutorials/articles/css/div_less/
You want to explain this one?
*ul*li*pThis page is laid out using heading, paragraph, and list tags. Neither SPANs nor DIVs have been used./
Exactly. I was actually thinking the other day, browsers
should be more like compilers... they should refuse to
parse incorrect code. Then the enforcement would be
on the output end, too.
It would be nice, but would only work if -every- browser did it.
Otherwise the general opinion
If you serve your XHTML pages as XML
documents then your browser will die on badly formed structure.
- A
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Christian Montoya
Sent: Thursday, 8 September 2005
10:44 a.m.
To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org
Subject: Re:
by-the-by: I am a web development student at Yeronga TAFE
college in Brisbane, Australia. One of my instructors has
never heard of DOCTYPE, refuses to put tags in lowercase
and also refuses to close p, 'cause they don't need to be
closed.
That instructor has no business teaching web dev, as
Kenny Graham wrote:
Exactly. I was actually thinking the other day, browsers
should be more like compilers... they should refuse to
parse incorrect code. Then the enforcement would be
on the output end, too.
It would be nice, but would only work if -every- browser did it.
Otherwise
Ah ha ha yes! Exactly my experience with my *first* web design course
ever... it's called Intro to Web Design Programming. I'm only in
the class because I have nothing else to take, and it's the only web
design class being offered in the fall... and because I want to be a
teaching assistant for
be glad you're learning about web standards now - it'll make getting a good job
a lot easier.
The capability of my tutors wasn't much better than yours. Even Zeldman has
lamented lately (sorry - googled and couldn't find the entry) that Universities
can teach molecular physics but apparently
Have filed a formal complaint against the instructor (who happens to run 10
hours of the 20 hours of classes we have each week.) I am no longer
attending his classes and may not get my Diploma. Still, gives me more time
to study at home (without the distraction of the fit young Physical
Education
I totally agree, but let me make a joke:
If browsers suddenly stopped parsing bad markup, wouldn't we be in big business? Imagine all the desperate clients! :DOn 9/7/05, Mike Brown
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:Kenny Graham wrote: Exactly. I was actually thinking the other day, browsers
should be
On 08/09/2005, at 9:14 AM, Nick Gleitzman wrote:
On 8 Sep 2005, at 8:59 AM, Craig Rippon wrote:
by-the-by: I am a web development student at Yeronga TAFE college
in Brisbane, Australia. One of my instructors has never heard of
DOCTYPE, refuses to put tags in lowercase and also refuses to
http://cs130.cs.cornell.edu/
HAS a table layout. For no reason.
No reason? It makes it much easier to meet the absolutely necessary
design requirement of... arbitrarily splitting the background color in
half?
On 8 Sep 2005, at 9:31 AM, Paul Bennett wrote:
be glad you're learning about web standards now - it'll make getting a
good job a lot easier.
The capability of my tutors wasn't much better than yours. Even
Zeldman has lamented lately (sorry - googled and couldn't find the
entry) that
There are actually a few excellent teachers at Sydney Institute (ultimo
TAFE) who understand and teach web site design and development with a real
focus on web standards. Their knowledge is extremely current and while the
old addage of
'Those that can, do. Those that can't, teach.'
is sometimes
That could also be done with a coule divs... I think. Not that I would want to have a page background like that. Ugh. On 9/7/05, Kenny Graham
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
http://cs130.cs.cornell.edu/
HAS a table layout. For no reason.
No reason? It makes it much easier to meet the absolutely
Then again,
I used to teach at Northern Sydney IT - they aren't all lucky enough
to get you Lisa :-)
john
On 08/09/2005, at 9:48 AM, Herrod, Lisa wrote:
There are actually a few excellent teachers at Sydney Institute
(ultimo
TAFE) who understand and teach web site design and development
John! I wasn't talking about me! I'm not there anymore LOL
I won't name names, but I will say they're lurking about on this list...
you know who you are people :)
I'm starting to see a new reality show... something like 'Rock school' but
it would be called 'standards school'
- john perhaps
On 8 Sep 2005, at 9:48 AM, Herrod, Lisa wrote:
There are actually a few excellent teachers at Sydney Institute (ultimo
TAFE) who understand and teach web site design and development with a
real
focus on web standards. Their knowledge is extremely current and while
the
old addage of
'Those
Hi,
In VPC 7.0.2 IE the following site(bushidoDeep.com) has the following
issues:
1. The navigation is wrapping to another line.
2. the about section is missing.
Site looks as expected in FF, Safari and Opera.
**
The discussion list for
-Original Message-
From: Herrod, Lisa [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, 8 September 2005 9:48 AM
To: 'wsg@webstandardsgroup.org'
Subject: RE: [WSG] Educate the educators (was) Barclays
standards redesign
There are actually a few excellent teachers at Sydney
Institute
I think it was Russ (Maxdesign) told me that there at least a couple of
Sydney TAFEs that teach Diploma IT Web Development really well, one of them
was Blue Mountains TAFE (too far from Brisbane unfortunately).
-Original Message-
From: Herrod, Lisa [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent:
From: Herrod, Lisa
There are actually a few excellent teachers at Sydney
Institute (ultimo TAFE) who understand and teach...
Maybe TAFE is better than most other educational institutes.
I did some welding courses quite a few years ago and the
instructors we had were brilliant practitioners
From: John Allsopp [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I guess what keeps me coming back back to this pointless and
frustrating discussion is certainly not for my sake. I could care
less that people choose to continue using tables for layout. But
when people advocate it as a sensible, reasonable alternative
From: russ - maxdesign [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Web Standards Group wsg@webstandardsgroup.org
Sent: Wednesday, September 07, 2005 6:38 PM
Subject: Re: [WSG] Tables and divs and soon - THREAD CLOSED
THREAD CLOSED
The reason for the closure of this thread is that while it had been
interesting and
Herrod, Lisa wrote:
I'm starting to see a new reality show... something like 'Rock school' but
it would be called 'standards school'
Well, although it bears no relation to Sydney, or indeed, tertiary
education, there is a high school in Victoria teaching standards-based
web design. As I
On 8 Sep 2005, at 10:43 AM, Andreas Boehmer [Addictive Media] wrote:
But not everybody can afford this kind of employment mix. If you are a
full
time lecturer all you can rely on is books, training courses and
seminars to
learn from.
What about the web itself?
That's actually no different
I'm actually a real champion of the TAFE system, the skills I learned at my
last TAFE course lasted me 15 years, absolutely brilliant.
-Original Message-
From: Peter Williams [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, 8 September 2005 10:55 AM
To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org
Subject: RE:
On 8 Sep 2005, at 10:43 AM, Andreas Boehmer [Addictive Media] wrote:
H This is going way off-topic, right?
No, no - I've enjoyed the couple of heatedly debated threads over the
past couple of days far more than the 'please fix my code' posts -
without please or thank you - that are
-Original Message-
From: Nick Gleitzman [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, 8 September 2005 11:09 AM
To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org
Subject: Re: [WSG] Educate the educators (was) Barclays
standards redesign
On 8 Sep 2005, at 10:43 AM, Andreas Boehmer [Addictive Media]
designer wrote:
OK, I don't use tables, except for tabular data. I've been doing this
standards stuff for for just one year and there is only one place where
I use a table for layout, and that is to put something (div, or
whatever) slap bang in the middle of the screen, both vertically and
1 - 100 of 112 matches
Mail list logo
