TuteC wrote:
and a screen reader can read the contents.
Eugenio, screen readers have no problem with tables. What you are
talking about is a myth.
Bob, remember that tables have all sorts of properties that are not down
to style. For instance, there is the artificial (in that it isn't
Barney Carroll wrote:
But at the end of the day, {display: table} is just as ridiculous as
div{display:inline} or span{display:block}. Besides, when I made
table-based designs I often found myself nesting tables within tables,
and I ended up with horribly deep code (a bit like Google ads,
Bob,
on Friday, February 23, 2007 at 12:19 wsg@webstandardsgroup.org wrote:
grid
gridcellcontent/gridcell
gridcelldifferent content/gridcell
/grid
This can then be CSS'd of course, in the normal way.
The important point though, is that the number of cells in a grid
One of the (many) things I wish for is a grid tag. Something along
the lines of the following (made up as I go along, so don't nitpick too
much :-)):
grid
gridcellcontent/gridcell
gridcelldifferent content/gridcell
/grid
This can then be CSS'd of course, in the normal way.
Rimantas Liubertas wrote:
One of the (many) things I wish for is a grid tag. Something along
the lines of the following (made up as I go along, so don't nitpick too
much :-)):
grid
gridcellcontent/gridcell
gridcelldifferent content/gridcell
/grid
This can then be CSS'd of
Martin Heiden wrote:
Bob,
on Friday, February 23, 2007 at 12:19 wsg@webstandardsgroup.org wrote:
grid
gridcellcontent/gridcell
gridcelldifferent content/gridcell
/grid
This can then be CSS'd of course, in the normal way.
The important point though, is that the number of
On 2/22/07, Designer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So, my (genuine) question is, is this really so wrong? So long as it's
kept really simple, which way is easier to read in a screen reader?
(Include the floated and hacked to death standards version as a third
alternative too).
It seems to me that
Following on from recent conversations about floats etc, we can
summarise by saying that we can have three basic choices:
1.
#grid {display : table}
#colalpha { width : 58%; padding-right :20px; display :
table-cell; }
#colbeta { width : 38%;
Bob,
As long as you have an audio-only disclaimer just before stating The
following object does not contain tabular data. Otherwise screen
readers (supposedly) and standardist developers browsing your site in
view-source mode (as one does) will get halfway through the content of
your first
Barney is right about screen readers and tables. The behaviour varies insofar
as some screen readers (such as Fire Vox) announce the presence of all the
tables, some don't announce them at all and some (such as JAWS) announce some
tables and not others. I am not sure how it decides which it does
Designer wrote:
It seems to me that pragmatism can sometimes outbenefit the religion
of standards - and I'd really like some real world feedback on when
such a table approach causes real problems. (Yes, I know it's not
truly semantic, and I agree that it's a problem because of that).
If
On 22 Feb 2007, at 12:07:21, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
A far bigger problem in my opinion is this recent fad for placing
tabular data
in definition lists. Where did that come from? The result really is
incomprehensible because even the best screen readers can make
little sense of
the
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I would disagree with the statement It is all semantics, and will be seen by
most designers as fundamentally incorrect and misleading. I suspect the
actual figure would be nearer 0.1% of designers, although most on this list
would likely agree with the statement.
Steve
David Dorward wrote:
Every cell in a row represents a day in a week.
Every cell in a column represents the same day of the week.
Looks tabular to me.
Isn't the first precept of semantic markup that looks are no guide as to
what things actually are?
Regards,
Barney
On Thu, 22 Feb 2007 16:48:21 -, Barney Carroll
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
David Dorward wrote:
Every cell in a row represents a day in a week.
Every cell in a column represents the same day of the week.
Looks tabular to me.
Isn't the first precept of semantic markup that looks are no
:24
To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org
Subject: Re: [WSG] layout - choices?
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I would disagree with the statement It is all semantics, and will be
seen by most designers as fundamentally incorrect and misleading. I
suspect the actual figure would be nearer 0.1% of designers
Thanks to all who responded. I must say that I basically agree with most
of what was said, but a few things still bother me, semantic-wise.
Firstly, doing it 'properly' could be seen as using the following:
#grid {display : table; }
#colalpha { width : 28em; display :
Designer wrote:
However, this is like saying I don't use tables, but I wish I could, so
I'm going to do the next best thing and make some divs behave like a
table with cells - Isn't it?
No, it is like saying This isn't tabular data, but I want a tabular
layout, so my markup is not going to
know if I remember any. I'll certainly shout the
next time someone does it!
Steve
-Original Message-
From: listdad@webstandardsgroup.org [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Behalf Of Barney Carroll
Sent: 22 February 2007 16:24
To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org
Subject: Re: [WSG] layout - choices
19 matches
Mail list logo
