hehe.

I'm not an avid TABLE fan, but in most situations when presenting
"Applications" via HTML, tables just tend to be the norm. This goes
for UI... oh, and many who have seen my CSS ZEN can agree i've pushed
that envelope in making CSS work. I've got MossyBlog 2.0 making use of
pure CSS and it was a bastard of a thing to get thrown together at
times, mainly as i wanted to position content for search engine
optimisation (test some theories out). So it's code flow didn't
exactly follow what you see visually.

That being said, i'm actually shocked that accessibility client/ware
technology disregards standards like XHTML completely - in that -
TABLES are considered verbose tags to be ignored?

Surely they must take their logic from the inline DTD? and based on
that work out the semantics vs noise and adjust accordingly...

I mean, ffs its bad enough browsers have issues and now someone here
states that accessibility clients have certain quirks also associated?
...

What's deemed accessible aswell is a site must have the same
experience as for a non-disabled vs disabled person, or they could
find themselves up for discrimination (or was it another legal buzz
word).

Bah..

Too religious for my blood.

On 5/13/05, Tom Kerr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 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/
> 


-- 
Regards,
Scott Barnes
http://www.mossyblog.com
http://www.flexcoder.com (Coming Soon)

---
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