Yeah - they have been working on this new version of about a year. The
main aim was to address the concerns that you mentioned. I think they
sent it live about a month ago.
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-validator/2003Aug/0105.html
Great minds think a like?
Cheers
Mark
***
At some stage, but that does look different to what I recall.
Certainly a step in the right direction.
On Thu, 2004-05-20 at 14:22, Mark Stanton wrote:
> Hi Chris
>
> Have you tried turning on verbose output? This can be done by going to
> the extended interface at http://validator.w3.org/detaile
Hi Chris
Have you tried turning on verbose output? This can be done by going to
the extended interface at http://validator.w3.org/detailed.html or by
changing verbose=0 to verbose=1 in the URL.
Cheers
Mark
*
The discussion list for http://webs
Good point Jamie.
Just a way out thought..
Imagine if the w3c validator went that extra mile and perhaps, given the
recommendations offered in the standard, provided some extra feedback on
problem areas of a document.
eg.
Warning : Line 100 to 150 : Document contains heavy element nesting
Wh
The voices are telling me that Patrick Griffiths said on 5/19/2004
7:43 AM:
Who are all of these mad heavy-handed authoritarian web nuts that you're
talking about? ;)
/me fires up Xnews, looks to see that
comp.infosystems.www.authoring.* are still there.
Yup.
/me scratches head.
:-p
--
Rev. Bob
Title: RE: [WSG] Tables are bad because...
Hi mate,
I hope I haven't misunderstood you, but the point I've gathered has been that tables are not to be used for anything other than their original intended purpose of presenting tabular data. Leaving it's use as a positional g
Who are all of these mad heavy-handed authoritarian web nuts that you're
talking about? ;)
>From what I see there are different ways of putting over a point, each
one usually as legitimate as the other and they all usually contribute
to a stronger understanding of web standards for those new to th
> One of Andy's 10 questions answers reinforced this by the use of words
> like "fascist" (a fascist is a pretty nasty thing BTW) to describe some
> people (easily misunderstood as everyone) in the web standards
> community who might be overly zealous about whether or not a site
> validates. Not th
John Allsopp wrote:
Andy,
Hi John,
I wasn't actually going too respond to your comments but considering
your latest email, I thought it was probably a good idea.
I actually wrote about half a dozen different replies to the article
and posted none of them, other than my snarky comment on your blo
> From: Chris Blown
[...]
> One of the things that I find hard to believe in this whole debate is
> that tables are some how seen as "a non standards based approach".
I see that view a lot from people who just discovered the beauty of CSS,
and are going a bit mad in the fight to kill off tables,
Mark,
On the whole it's a good read & I agree with a lot of what you are
saying bit this section:
But unfortunately an article like yours is not read by them in the
spirit in which you intended, it is read as a vindication of their
position. "See, Andy Budd agrees with me".
So rather than seeing so
On Sat, 2004-05-15 at 09:25, John Allsopp wrote:
> So rather than seeing something like "at times, it may be necessary to
> use a non standards based approach to achieve an outcome within
> certain constraints, and that is ok" they see "all those standards
> zealots really don't know about the rea
Hi John
I don't want to weigh into this argument of tables right or wrong - I
think all the angles are being covered pretty well at the moment. But
I read your post & a couple of things jumped out at me.
On the whole it's a good read & I agree with a lot of what you are
saying bit this section:
Am 15.05.2004 um 20:36 schrieb Peter A. Shevtsov:
Michael Zeltner wrote:
but hey, you could do that with accessible flash, that would be
cleaner :)
Hey! You force visitors to install Flash player. But someone can't do
that because their internal company policy, or they just don't know
how to do
Michael Zeltner wrote:
but hey, you could do that with accessible flash, that would be
cleaner :)
Hey! You force visitors to install Flash player. But someone can't do
that because their internal company policy, or they just don't know how
to do it.
I think that image maps are more accessible.
Am 15.05.2004 um 08:52 schrieb Peter A. Shevtsov:
I do not agree about image maps. For example, you have the image of
geographical map, and you have to make so, if you click on the certain
country area, the page with information related to this country would
open. How can you provide this withou
Ryan Christie wrote:
Go to Andy's article, and try replacing the words "table" and "table
layout" with "font tag".
Works a treat,
Good observation :) I think it works with "image map" as well
--Ryan Christie
*
The discussion list for http://we
Andy,
I actually wrote about half a dozen different replies to the article and posted none of them, other than my snarky comment on your blog, for which I apologize.
I didn't publish them because they were all a little, well, heated.
I usually write, I hope, with a little levity, and wit, if on
Go to Andy's article, and try replacing the words "table" and "table
layout" with "font tag".
Works a treat,
Good observation :) I think it works with "image map" as well
--Ryan Christie
*
The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/
Hi John
I have to admit that I don't think it does work. I don't think you can
argue for instance that it's easier to use font tags than CSS or that
there are occasions when font tags are less weighty and complicated
than CSS.
I probably should have made it clearer that I was referring to CSS2
Mike et al.
Sorry but there isn’t a place for
sooner or later it'll cease working.
Go to Andy's article, and try replacing the words "table" and "table
layout" with "font tag".
Works a treat,
Sigh,
John
John Allsopp
:: westciv :: http://www.westciv.com/
software, courses, resources f
Sorry but there isnt a place for http://afpwebworks.com
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] To:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [WSG] Tables are bad because...
El vie, 14-05-2004 a las 08:55, Nick Lo escribió:
> Although as I'd already post
El vie, 14-05-2004 a las 08:55, Nick Lo escribió:
> Although as I'd already posted today...
>
> http://www.mezzoblue.com/archives/2004/05/13/gasp_tables/index.php
>
After the 'there's a place for and ' and 'there's a place for
layout tables' posts, i feel i should be writing my own 'there's a p
Although as I'd already posted today...
http://www.mezzoblue.com/archives/2004/05/13/gasp_tables/index.php
...has an objective look at it.
How about this article, helpfully titled "Why tables for layout is
stupid".
http://www.hotdesign.com/seybold/
Also, I highly recommend Jeffrey Zeldman's b
On 14/05/2004, at 3:46 PM, Aaron DC wrote:
... heya all - just joined the list for interest's sake and am slowly
making my way through some of the posted CSS-savvy sites. Somewhere
along the way someone decided tables and in particular nested tables
are a bad thing (tm) - I am curious as to the
Hi Aaron,
How about this article, helpfully titled "Why tables for layout is stupid".
http://www.hotdesign.com/seybold/
Also, I highly recommend Jeffrey Zeldman's book "Designing for Web
Standards". It's a great read, for zealots and non-zealots alike :)
K.
--
Kay Smoljak
Senior Developer/QC L
26 matches
Mail list logo
