Not that I'm into "me too" posts but here's my 2 cents.
I don't think "using tables is a very good way of raising the risk of
invalid documents" as John suggested, but rather people that use tables have
got an old-fashioned mindset.
Until a few years ago, I used tables for layout, exclusively. However,
I made sure my pages validated to html 4.01 strict or xhtml 1.0 strict.
Table based designs are not the cause of the errors, nor is it more
difficult to make them valid than documents without tables.
John: "using tables is a very good way of raising the risk of invalid
documents."
I agree that most sites that have invalid markup use tables (or even
frames) for layout. That makes sense, since people who know how to
design without tables would more than likely understand the importance
of validation. But I don't agree with John's conclusion which seems to
reverse that thought.
In *many* cases sites that are full of validation errors are either
produced a WYSIWYG editor or by some server side script. Indeed, many
scripted sites are littered with nested tables and validation errors.
So "Using programmers is a very good way of raising the risk of invalid
documents"? Nah!
Anyway, ICSS is not a religion to me and I will use a simple layout
table if it helps me achieve what I need to achieve :-) And yes, it
will validate!
Regards
--
Bert Doorn, Better Web Design
http://www.betterwebdesign.com.au/
Fast-loading, user-friendly websites
******************************************************
The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
******************************************************
