Re: [whatwg] several messages about discouraged things

2007-06-19 Thread MegaZone
Once upon a time Ian Hickson shaped the electrons to say...
 Frames are out (except iframe, which I don't really see as being a 
 problem, though let me know if I'm wrong on this). Tables for layout are 

I think iframe is required simply by weight of use.  It seems like
most web-based advertising uses iframe now - huge examples are Google
AdSense and Amazon.

Back when HTML 4 was being put together, I suggested doing without
iframe and having object handle text/html.  It always seeemd to me
that iframe was really a specialized 'object'.  But now iframe is more
widespread than frames ever were.

-MZ
-- 
megazone-at-megazone.org  http://www.MegaZone.org/   Gweep, Geek, Human, me.
http://www.TiVoLovers.com/  http://www.Eyrie-Productions.com/ -- Hail Eris 
A little nonsense now and then, is relished by the wisest men 508-852-2171


Re: [whatwg] several messages about discouraged things

2007-06-19 Thread Lachlan Hunt

Ian Hickson wrote:

On Sat, 24 Feb 2007, Keryx Web wrote:
- A table within a table cell (Has this ever been used for anything but 
layout?)


There are valid uses of that, though they are rare.


Really?  What are they?

--
Lachlan Hunt
http://lachy.id.au/


Re: [whatwg] several messages about discouraged things

2007-06-18 Thread Ian Hickson
On Sat, 24 Feb 2007, Keryx Web wrote:
 
 Speaking from __my__ experience, and the experience of those (too few) 
 colleagues that I've met in Sweden who teach standards based web 
 development, it is hard too make the student understand that something 
 is wrong if he/she get's away with it.

Agreed.


 I would like the spec to clearly state what is allowed for backwards 
 compatibility only and what is the preferred way of marking up content.

The spec doesn't allow anything purely for backwards compatibility.


 I would like a spec that clearly says that some ways of marking up 
 content is detrimental to accessibility and perhaps also usability. E.g. 
 frames, including the iframe, or tables used for layout. You would not 
 believe how many colleagues of mine who actually teach that frames are a 
 good thing. My nephew, who studies i a nearby city, even had frames as a 
 required feature of his work!

Frames are out (except iframe, which I don't really see as being a 
problem, though let me know if I'm wrong on this). Tables for layout are 
non-conforming, though I hope to make this clearer in due course. I've 
added a note to myself in the spec to remind myself of this.


On Sun, 25 Feb 2007, Keryx Web wrote:
 
 A few examples that I think is bad practice (99.9 % of the time it's used):
 
 - Inline styles

The media-specific evils of style=, if it is allowed at all, will indeed 
be called out explicitly.


 - Empty p-elements, or p elements containing only nbsp;

The former will be allowed, as there are valid use cases (usually 
involving script). I'd like to ban the latter, but I'm not sure how to do 
it. Any suggestions?


 - A table within a table cell (Has this ever been used for anything but 
 layout?)

There are valid uses of that, though they are rare. But layout tables in 
general will be discouraged (and are non-conforming).


 - Iframes

Why are they bad?

-- 
Ian Hickson   U+1047E)\._.,--,'``.fL
http://ln.hixie.ch/   U+263A/,   _.. \   _\  ;`._ ,.
Things that are impossible just take longer.   `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'