Re: [WSG] Tables are bad because...
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: 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 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 real world so everything they say can safely be ignored. Then Dave Shea, and Nick Bradbury and others weigh in nominally agreeing, making it all like its all so reasonable and realistic and essentially you reinforce the context of the discussion about web standards. ..kind of scared me a little. Could what you are saying be distilled into Don't raise controversial complicated issues in public because they might be misinterpreted by fools and used contrary to their original meaning? That's how I'm reading it. Andy, Dave Nick's comments will most likely be misunderstood or misrepresented by some, but I imagine they are going to help others. Regardless of whether people agree or disagree its about getting people to think about the issue and that has to be a good thing. However even this is beside the point. Andy has expressed an opinion, anyone and everyone is more than welcome to debate the ideas he's raised (as I know you have), but I thinks its rude to criticise the fact that he expressed the opinion in the first place. Argue the points but, please don't stifle the conversation itself. I'm not trying to pick a fight - I mean the above in the most respectful way. Cheers Mark * The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help *
Re: [WSG] Tables are bad because...
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 real world so everything they say can safely be ignored. 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. Of course an argument could be made that tables only exist in the standard for legacy reasons, since dropping them would break the whole web. We know better than that, tables still have a place in the standard, by the same token what of the comments about floats and their original purpose, does the fact that we use them for other purposes make it wrong? Judging by the comments to your post, you'll see that a lot of people want to use tables, largely because that is what they know and do now. They simply don't want to accept the arguments in favour of a standards based web. That's fine by me, they are quite entitled to do so. I don't think they are very wise, but while I evangelise web standards, I don't insist on people using them. 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. There is indeed people who may take Andy's words as an excuse to continue using nested tables as they see fit. But I think most people who read Andy's article understand its general flavour. The advantages to using modern markup and css are quite obvious to most people, esp. those who have an interest in new concepts. These concepts we pride ourselves on are ideal and given a perfect world would stand out alone as the one way, however in practise and mainly due to IE this is not the case, and its these factors that make it possible for a decent case to maybe working in a table here or there. This is the one single fact that I've taken from all this banter. I would also like to think that most people who use tables for layout are fully aware of the short comings of such a method and that they realise its a choice they've made that others may not have. The development process is not usually so clean cut and from my experience I realise that most developers face a multitude of different variables that can sway these decisions around in the wind. As I imagine you have seen John, its a difficult thing to try and explain to a seasoned table builder how there is another way, an even better way. The acceptance of this process given complete ignorance of the benefits is an uphill battle. The discovery of these ideals by the individual is the best solution. Look, I know you like tables and it seems easy now, but here read this, and get back to me hand them a good book on modern markup authoring techniques. If they see the light then great, otherwise .. well tough. The popular response to Andy's article that using the odd table without nesting them, is simple practical advice. I don't really think the odd table is that detrimental to our efforts of advocating web standards. Regards Chris Blown * The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help *
Re: [WSG] Tables are bad because...
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 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 real world so everything they say can safely be ignored. Then Dave Shea, and Nick Bradbury and others weigh in nominally agreeing, making it all like its all so reasonable and realistic and essentially you reinforce the context of the discussion about web standards. ..kind of scared me a little. Could what you are saying be distilled into Don't raise controversial complicated issues in public because they might be misinterpreted by fools and used contrary to their original meaning? That's how I'm reading it. There is an irony there that I am not entirely at liberty to discuss unfortunately. Probably the most important part of my response, certainly as I see it now is don't buy into the bogus notion of the web standards community being beset with holier than thou attitudes, and zealotry. 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 that I think even these creatures abound, and are certainly not part of the hard core of the web standards community. Andy, Dave Nick's comments will most likely be misunderstood or misrepresented by some, but I imagine they are going to help others. Regardless of whether people agree or disagree its about getting people to think about the issue and that has to be a good thing. The problem is that all three, along with an increasing number of people who responded and replied to and wrote about the article used terms like reasonable and balanced and objective about it. But the article and its followups have rarely been any of these. It uses a lot of judgmental language (words like zealot, purist, demonize). However even this is beside the point. Andy has expressed an opinion, anyone and everyone is more than welcome to debate the ideas he's raised (as I know you have), but I thinks its rude to criticise the fact that he expressed the opinion in the first place. Argue the points but, please don't stifle the conversation itself. I think we all have a responsibility to consider the consequences of our actions and words. Andy has opened a can of worms with this article. Was it worth opening? The can is not so much people using or not tables, frankly that is pretty much irrelevant. Some people will, increasingly others won't. In 5 years time or less this will be as controversial as whether font tags should be deprecated. The can of worms for me is this growing meme that standards advocates and developers are zealots, purists, live in ivory towers, etc. etc. etc I think it is unwise for people of significant standing in the web development community to fuel those kinds of sentiments, even unwittingly. I'm not trying to pick a fight - I mean the above in the most respectful way. Mark, I guess I come across quite strongly, I tend not to beat about the bush. I certainly wasn't looking for a fight, but at the same time I was a bit cross with the subtext of the article. There are enough people out there waiting to beat up on standards advocates and the community. Let's not do it to ourselves. John John Allsopp :: westciv :: http://www.westciv.com/ software, courses, resources for a standards based web :: style master blog :: http://westciv.typepad.com/dog_or_higher/ :: webessentials Sept 30 - October 1 2004 Sydney Australia * The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help *
RE: [WSG] Tables are bad because...
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, even when they're the appropriate markup to use (tabular data). Of course an argument could be made that tables only exist in the standard for legacy reasons, since dropping them would break the whole web. Well, for tabular data, there is *no* equivalent with the same semantic and structural properties of a well written, multi-row, multi-column table. Using divs and spans and stuff to recreate a table look without tables for tabular data shows a complete misunderstanding of what the actual purpose of the markup is all about. Yes, you may end up eliminating every single table, and get a nice glowing warm feeling...but you've effectively broken any relationship which was defined between the various headings and the data cells, turning well formatted tabular information into a meaningless mess... does the fact that we use them for other purposes make it wrong? Of course not. However, by the same reasoning, it doesn't make it right to pervert the element's original purpose, the same way that blockquote should not be perverted to get visual indentations, for instance...it doesn't make the actual blockquote element wrong, but it shouldn't be used in that way. It's the perversion of purpose that is wrong. The popular response to Andy's article that using the odd table without nesting them, is simple practical advice. I don't really think the odd table is that detrimental to our efforts of advocating web standards. Exactly. As long as the designers/developers are making the decision in full knowledge that there might be a better way to handle the situation without having to resort to tables, but that - due to time constraints, need for legacy browser support (in a visual/layout sense), work with multiple authors who may not be up to speed with table-less layout - in this particular situation using a table will do for now. Just going through this email, I hope I'm not giving the impression that I'm in disagreement with you...I see that we're both coming from the same pragmatic approach. Just filling in the other side of the argument kind of thing... Patrick Patrick H. Lauke Webmaster / University of Salford http://www.salford.ac.uk * The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help *
Re: [WSG] Tables are bad because...
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 blog, for which I apologize. No worries. I'm a big guy and can handle criticism. 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 occasion it can be quite dry. I just couldn't in this case. Again, no worries. Like I said in the preface to my article, one of the reasons for publishing it was to play devils advocate. In all honesty I was expecting a much bigger and more heated backlash than the article actually got. As such I was fully prepared for a certain amount of negative criticism. I see where you are coming from, but really, I think it is up to those who honestly want to advocate for a non standards based approach to do so for themselves. Funnily, they usually end up looking like David Emberton's article. Another reason for publishing the article was to provide a more balanced view of the situation. My fear is that, without open and reasonable discussion about the realities of web standards development, people will start to believe the reactionary views of people like David Emberton. I'd prefer somebody who's struggling with CSS to read my article and think that it's OK to use the odd table in a transitional layout, rather than read David's article and decide that CSS layout just doesn't work! Judging by the comments to your post, you'll see that a lot of people want to use tables, largely because that is what they know and do now. They simply don't want to accept the arguments in favor of a standards based web. That's fine by me, they are quite entitled to do so. I don't think they are very wise, but while I evangelize web standards, I don't insist on people using them. 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. Funny but I've just re-read the comments and I don't get that feeling at all. The general response seems to be that people are happy using CSS for most layout situations but will not discount simple, non nested tables if appropriate. I think if people do drop CSS layout and say See, Andy Budd agrees with me, then they have completely misunderstood the point of the article. I believe the concepts in the article are well written and logical, and that the purpose and conclusions are clear. It's true that I should have been a bit more specific by stating that I was only talking about CSS for positioning, but most people seem to have realise that. 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 real world so everything they say can safely be ignored. From my experience, people can be really intimidated by CSS and labour under the belief that it's all or nothing. This isn't helped by the attitudes of some standards practitioners who's strict views on coding can really put people off using CSS for layout. People respond much better to an even handed approach, than a prescriptive one. Then Dave Shea, and Nick Bradbury and others weigh in nominally agreeing, making it all like its all so reasonable and realistic and essentially you reinforce the context of the discussion about web standards. Well I wouldn't say that they weighed in as this give the impression that their comments were rather heavy handed. Their comments seemed reasonable and held weight because they came from experienced web developers who have experienced some of the things I was talking about. And what was that context? Bluntly, using the words of the article, that people who advocate standards are zealots purists, live in Ivory towers (and so by implication, not the real world). They demonize tables, and so by implication the users of of tables, and they have a sense of superiority about their approach. This is the bit that made me sigh. This isn't objective, its only a slightly more subtle version of David Emberton's nonsense. I think most people would agree that there are *some* individuals who have a very purist and prescriptive approach to standards. There is also a lot of theoretical discussion about web standards going on at the moment. For people within the community, I'm sure all this all feels reasonable. We know that we are partaking in a theoretical discussion and that in reality, things are less black and white. However, if you are outside the community, this kind of attitude can feel extremely intimidating. I also think there are a number of web standards practitioners
Re: [WSG] Tables are bad because... Web standards fascism
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 that I think even these creatures abound, and are certainly not part of the hard core of the web standards community. John, Andy has answered most of you comments eloquently, as always. However, I'd like to address the web standards fascism comment. The actual question was asked by me to Andy (so your criticism should be aimed at me). Do you think there is an element of web standards fascism in the web development community? Firstly, the term 'web standards fascists' was meant to be tongue in cheek. Secondly, the reason for the question was because a small section of the web community seemed to be attacking the Web Standards Awards for a period just after it began. Basically, any site that was nominated was attacked - and sometimes for extremely pedantic reasons. This sort of attitude is completely counter-productive. It can actually undermine the confidence of people who are just starting to feel good about moving towards web standards. I had already talked about this to Andy, so it seemed like a good question to be asking in public. Finally, I think your objection to the term is probably one of definition. So, here are my definitions for what they are worth: If you believe in standards, are passionate about them and want to convert others through co-operative behaviour then you could be considered to be an 'evangelist'. If you use web standards (or any knowledge for that matter) as a weapon against people, with the purpose of exposing them or making them feel bad then you could be called a 'web standards fascist'. This is a fine line as constructive criticism is always valuable, but destructive criticism is not. Am I sounding like a fortune cookie again? Russ * The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help *
Re: [WSG] Tables are bad because...
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 the area and for those with more experience. Web designers tend not to be stupid people and if you can put forward an intelligent and logical argument, there's no need to sit on the fence. Being prescriptive is obviously a bad thing, but justified reasoning can be enlightening and inspiring. When I want to learn something, I want to know how to do it the right way and, usually, the best way. I know it's going to take me time to learn it, but I'd rather know what I'm ultimately aiming for rather than going for something that's not quite as good. I think most people would agree that there are *some* individuals who have a very purist and prescriptive approach to standards. Purist is ok, as long as it doesn't affect practicality. Prescriptive isn't ok, but even if an 'extreme' argument can be backed up with sound justification then it can only be a good thing. There is also a lot of theoretical discussion about web standards going on at the moment. For people within the community, I'm sure all this all feels reasonable. We know that we are partaking in a theoretical discussion and that in reality, things are less black and white. However, if you are outside the community, this kind of attitude can feel extremely intimidating. Or, if the full potential of web standards can be conveyed, inspiring. I agree that there is a big difference between the theoretical and the practical, but again, where are these people who put theory before practice? However some individuals can come across as dogmatic and prescriptive. Nobody likes being preached at or being told that their hard work is in vein because they used a table to lay out a form, or have a few minor validation issues. Agreed. Who's saying that though? Most comments I see are along the lines of this would be better if... rather than No you oik! Your work is WORTHLESS CRAP DAMN YOU! I think it does the community and the web standards cause a much greater disservice to stand dogmatically behind a set of beliefs, thus helping to reinforce the stereotypes even more. Don't stifle discussion or knock those who deviate from the party line. I'm all for pushing the standards boundaries, but we also need to accept and talk about the limitations involved. If we don't acknowledge and discuss the limitations as a community, you know that others will. Acknowledge limitations yes, but where there are real demonstratable advantages to be had they should be raved about; shouted from the tree tops rather than beating around the bush. Patrick Patrick Griffiths (PTG) http://www.htmldog.com/ptg/ http://www.htmldog.com * The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help *
Re: [WSG] Tables are bad because...
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 Bob Crispen bob at crispen dot org Ex Cathedra Weblog: http://blog.crispen.org/ Some people just don't know how to drive... I call these people Everybody But Me * The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help *
Re: [WSG] Tables are bad because... Crazy idea for validation.
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/detailed.html or by changing verbose=0 to verbose=1 in the URL. Cheers Mark * The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help * * The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help *
Re: [WSG] Tables are bad because...
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://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help * 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 without image maps? Cheers Peter A. Shevtsov * The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help *
Re: [WSG] Tables are bad because...
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 without image maps? agreed - the nice thing on imagemaps is you aren't forced to use squares. if someone would make that with block a /s without visual content he'd have to put loads of these to get every edge of the country linked. but hey, you could do that with accessible flash, that would be cleaner :) regards, michael -- Michael Zeltner Netalley Networks LLP http://www.netalleynetworks.com/ * The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help *
Re: [WSG] Tables are bad because...
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 it. i don't force anybody to do anything: accessible flash means, alternative content *and* (in case you didn't know they exists) using flashs accessibility features (http://www.macromedia.com/macromedia/accessibility/features/flash/). I think that image maps are more accessible. they are, but i didn't say more accessible. clean (as in semantically correct) was what i meant. the problem is, if someone has an old screenreader and flash installed, he won't get the flash features, and no alternative content. What do you mean by accessibe flash apropos? see above. regards, michael -- Michael Zeltner Netalley Networks LLP http://www.netalleynetworks.com/ * The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help *
RE: [WSG] Tables are bad because...
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 Leader/Search Optimisation PerthWeb Pty Ltd - http://www.perthweb.com.au/ Ph: 08 9226 1366 - Fax: 08 9226 1375 -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Aaron DC Sent: Friday, 14 May 2004 1:46 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [WSG] Tables are bad because... ... 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 reasoning/history behind this, and the penalties I will receive when I release the new website design for my website :) Regards, Aaron * The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help *
Re: [WSG] Tables are bad because...
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 book Designing for Web Standards. It's a great read, for zealots and non-zealots alike :) * The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help *
Re: [WSG] Tables are bad because...
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 i and b' and 'there's a place for layout tables' posts, i feel i should be writing my own 'there's a place for font' post :o) -- Manuel trabaja para Simplelógica, construcción web (+34) 985 22 12 65 http://simplelogica.net * The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help *
RE: [WSG] Tables are bad because...
Sorry but there isnt a place for font tags. font has been deprecated and sooner or later it'll cease working. Cheers Mike Kear Windsor, NSW, Australia AFP Webworks 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 posted today... http://www.mezzoblue.com/archives/2004/05/13/gasp_tables/index.php After the 'there's a place for i and b' and 'there's a place for layout tables' posts, i feel i should be writing my own 'there's a place for font' post :o) * The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help *
Re: [WSG] Tables are bad because...
Mike et al. Sorry but there isnt a place for font tags. font has been deprecated and 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 for a standards based web :: style master blog :: http://westciv.typepad.com/dog_or_higher/ :: webessentials Sept 30 - October 1 2004 Sydney Australia * The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help *
Re: [WSG] Tables are bad because...
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 occasion it can be quite dry. I just couldn't in this case. I see where you are coming from, but really, I think it is up to those who honestly want to advocate for a non standards based approach to do so for themselves. Funnily, they usually end up looking like David Emberton's article. Judging by the comments to your post, you'll see that a lot of people want to use tables, largely because that is what they know and do now. They simply don't want to accept the arguments in favor of a standards based web. That's fine by me, they are quite entitled to do so. I don't think they are very wise, but while I evangelize web standards, I don't insist on people using them. 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 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 real world so everything they say can safely be ignored. Then Dave Shea, and Nick Bradbury and others weigh in nominally agreeing, making it all like its all so reasonable and realistic and essentially you reinforce the context of the discussion about web standards. And what was that context? Bluntly, using the words of the article, that people who advocate standards are zealots purists, live in Ivory towers (and so by implication, not the real world). They demonize tables, and so by implication the users of of tables, and they have a sense of superiority about their approach. This is the bit that made me sigh. This isn't objective, its only a slightly more subtle version of David Emberton's nonsense. It is unjustified, unsubstantiated, and frankly I took it a little personally. It reminds me (I am sure unintentionally) of the current right wing rhetorical trump card of referring to anyone who thinks (you know that say invading countries in contravention of international law is not like, totally ok) as an elitist, usually with latte sipping thrown in for good measure :-) ( dunno if that is a trend in the UK but it sure is in Australia and the US). In reality, the community of standards advocates, evangelists, whatever you want to call them is without question one of the most generous I have ever seen. If you want to get started there are any number of great free tutorials, guides, and other resources. There are mailing lists and newsgroups where people have been answering the same questions for nearly a decade, occasionally a little grumpily when the same question is asked for the 400th time, a question for which a good answer could be googled in a moment (font-size + pixel + em isn't that hard :-) People you have never met will fix your problems for free, send you screenshots in bowsers on platforms you don't have. Is there any evidence for the caricature of an elitist zealot here? Or anywhere for that matter? Not much that I have ever seen. I feel you have done a bit of a disservice to that whole community of which you are a member. I know it wasn't meant like that. I know it wasn't personal. But unfortunately you've just internalized and then reinforced this emerging stereotype of the web standards community. 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 was being metaphorical, in the sense that you could simply replace the words and have a perfectly coherent argument. Which is not that much less valuable than without interchanging the words. But 4 or 5 years ago, that was the article that would have been written. Shift happens. Andy, let those who wish to use tables, or whatever other approach design do as they will. Let those who believe that web standards are a good thing advocate and evangelize and continue to spread the word. Gil Scott-Heron, in the song I took the title of my message to the messengers article from says But I think you young folks need to know that...things don't go both ways. You can't talk respect on every other song or just every other day. He's talking to the rappers of today, but it's a bit like that with standards and accessibility. It is a commitment to something important, and like human rights, ethics, and other important things its not simply something we can cherry pick. At times it is hard. Trivial things are often easy. Non trivial things are often difficult. But usually vastly more rewarding. Keep fighting the good
[WSG] Tables are bad because...
... 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 reasoning/history behind this, and the penalties I will receive when I release the new website design for my website :) Regards, Aaron
