There is no hard and fast rule as the whether tables are 'standards'. It is possible to build site layout using tables and still comply with the 'rules'. The question is whether or not tables should be used at all other than for displaying tabular data.
My particular slant on this is that tables make mark-up meaningless when they are used to layout a page! There is virtually nothing you can't achieve with css-positioning for page layout. If this method is employed it is possible to serve content that is formatted for any viewing media (print/browser/wap/tv/toaster/alarm clock or any other web enabled device.... yes I know, you can't view web pages on a toaster...yet!) Why would you have to serve a separate page to each device.
IMHO keep tables for data that needs to be presented in a 'tabular' form.
There is nothing wrong with using tables in a standards based environment, pages will validate. But try to navigate a page built with multiple nests of tables in a browser for the visually impaired and you will see what I mean. So how can you satisfy accessibility rules if you use tables. Legislation will tighten on this, I want to be sure I'm ready for it.
The other main consideration is with regard to ease of maintenance. If a web page contains specific semantically sensible <div>s such as:-
<div id="header">Header/banner/tagline etc go here</div>
<div id="navigation">Links go here</div>
<div id="content">Main page content goes here</div>
<div id="sidebar">Extra information goes here</div>
<div id="footer">Your footer details</div>
In this situation anyone maintaining your code can find their way round the page. Redesigning becomes a cinch across a site with many pages. How would you unravel a site with 10,000 pages if it were built with content nested in endless table tags? Standards based development allows you to separate the content from the design.
As a side note ... this is a standard technique which echoes software development methods used in building more complex web applications where content, presentation, logic and database are all separated from each other (this is called 'n-tier') where each element can be replaced by another without the other elements being effected. An example of this could be that the database back end of an e-commerce site could be based on MySQL but a change in the corporate plan requires a migration to Microsoft SQL Server. The design shouldn't be affected here, only the database connection. If all the mark-up was in one 'spaghetti page' how long would it take to unravel the code and then reassemble?
For a perfect illustration of why css-positioning wins over table based layout see the CSS ZENGARDEN (http://www.csszengarden.com/) where the same page of mark-up has been altered beyond all recognition just by changing the css and adding a few custom images.
CSS already offers more than a few rectangular boxes on the page and designers like Doug Bowman, Dave Shea et al are showing the rest of us just what can be achieved.
I believe there is no doubt that table based design will become a thing of the past and I hope that much of what I have said here both makes some sense and also encourages you to explore this exciting area more fully.
Peter Goddard
Web Developer/IT
PSI Global Ltd
-----Original Message-----
From: Olajide Olaolorun [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: 04 October 2004 14:56
To: Web Standards Group
Subject: [WSG] Tables, is it Standard?
Hi, I would like to know if Tables is standard. You see, I have been
into web standards for some time now nut I still use Tables and would
like to know if it is standards....
Thanks
--
Personal:
www.olajideolaolorun.com
www.empirex.net
Business:
www.tripleolabs.com
www.tripleostudios.com
www.tripleo.biz
Projects:
www.uniformserver.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
******************************************************
