1. Sites built to web standards do not have to be full-CSS. While it is a great goal, it is not essential. You can use hybrid layouts with a basic table grids to hold the elements in place and all other presentation driven by CSS.
Exactly.. But I don't get his "can't look in the source to find out how it's gonna look like" attitude[1] against <div>'s. Seems awkward to me... I mean, why bother having clever source order then?
I'd like to add though, as he mentions speed of pages, that for me (sitting on a PowerBook 3400 at the moment) my modem is the bottleneck for many <table>-based sites, but my graphics card(!) is the biggest bottleneck for CSS-heavy sites...
cheers,
/Anton
[1] "You essentially make it harder to figure out where things go in design view, and on top of that, maintain it in the first place."
PS. He also notes: "What's really stupid is that these non-visual browsers aren't smart enough to figure out what the words mean or have some idea what they pertain to? There is a spell checker and a GRAMMER [sic!] checker in Microsoft WORD." Oh, there is? ;)
--
What your <body> lacks, your <head> compensates.
*****************************************************
The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/
*****************************************************
