Stefan Seefeld wrote:
This sort of layout can in principle be achieved using DocBook tables
(CALS or HTML style), which is what I do, but it is unwieldy and
cumbersome to adjust.
It is not semantic, it is inaccessible for non-visual users
and plain bad XML IMHO.
Could you elaborate on that a bit ?
Tables are for tabular data. Go read W3C accessibility guidelines.
Tables are not for visual layout all over the screen.
CSS does that nicely without messing with accessibility.
You are certainly right about the non-semantic nature of this markup (if
in fact you stipulate that presentation is non-semantic, which, in the
context of slides, one could argue about).
Agreed its very gray
I don't quite agree about the (in-)accessibility point. Obviously, the
order those blocks appear matters, but having them being rendered (or
read) in the order in which they appear seems to be a good compromise
I was referring to the use of tables.
Plain divs, correctly sequenced, are comprehensible via any reader,
CSS or not. Just down to the author to write the content in
an appropriate order so that CSS enhances visual and does nothing
negative to audio presentation.
regards
--
Dave Pawson
XSLT XSL-FO FAQ.
http://www.dpawson.co.uk
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
