On Fri, May 13, 2005 at 04:31:20PM +1000, Scott Barnes wrote:
> without getting into a pi$$ing contest but..

Don't like 'em much either. :)

> > I'm not sure 'neglected' is the right word here.  XHTML includes a
> > tables module, this is true.  It also specifies that the tables module
> > provides elements for marking up tabular data (see eg.
> > http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/WD-xhtml2-20040722/mod-tables.html).  So no,
> > you are definitely not breaking the rules by including a table in your
> > document.  By using that table for the layout of non-tabular data you
> > most certainly are not complying with (at least) the spirit of the XHTML
> > specification.
> 
> Well yes and no, lets take a step back and accept that if were were
> going to use the DIV approach vs TABLE in regards to CSS Properties
> your code would go from this:
> 
> <table>
> <tr>
> <td>data1</td>
> </tr>
> </table>

If data1 is part of a table this is terrific, as the markup clearly
indicates this and anything that can display tables can display your
content in some meaningful ways.  If it's not a table then you're giving
us incorrect 'hints' about how to best view the data you're presenting.

> to
> <div id="semanticallycorrect_wrapper_identification" class="tbl">
> <div class="row">
> <div class="cell">
> </div>
> </div>

You're right, this isn't much better in general.  If the data is not a
table, then without style information at least this doesn't give
semantics that don't reflect the nature of the content.

> -OR-
> <employees>
> <employee>
> <name>data1</name>
> </employee>
> </employees>

or, somewhat equivalently
<div class="employees">
        <div class="employee">
                <div class="name">name1</div>
        </div>
</div>

> The spirit of XHTML for me was to basically bring chaos to order in
> terms of marking up HTML to something that is "semantically" correct
> in its approach. Making machines understand a language instead of
> taking queus from visual meanings (ie <b> vs <strong> debates etc).

Yes, I'm totally in agreement with this.

> > It's not Ford vs. Holden, it's Ford vs. Boeing.  Which one provides the
> > vehicle appropriate for the task at hand?
> 
> I fail to see that analogy ;) hehe. 

Yeahwell, I'm sick of apples and I had no oranges to hand. :P

-T

---
You are currently subscribed to cfaussie as: [email protected]
To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Aussie Macromedia Developers: http://lists.daemon.com.au/

Reply via email to