At 01:19 AM 9/7/2005, John Allsopp wrote:
Paul,
Hang on now. There's nothing about the use of table markup per se
that leads one to err more frequently.
on the contrary, actual research suggests very strongly that there is.
I have found a very high correlation between malformed documents and
the use of tables (with the errors occurring in direct association
with table code).
John,
It's not the correlation I'm questioning, it's the implied
causality. I hope you'll make a distinction between them in your article.
If using tables for layout promoted sloppy coding, then it stands to
reason that if I were to move back to table-based layout today then
my markup would suffer accordingly. However, I know that would not
occur, in part because having learned to use XHTML-CSS-semantic
markup has raised my consciousness but largely because I use
validation tools today to ensure that my markup finishes cleanly.
I suspect that the reason for the correlation you're revealing goes
something more like this: that table-based layout is what most web
developers learn first; that it's possible for someone with primitive
HTML skills to hack out a relatively stable page using tables; that
being able to produce table-based pages will enable a developer to
stick around and move ahead in an organization, especially a huge
governmental bureaucracy or corporation in which insight into the
technical issues around page development is dim and anyone who can
craft a web page quickly and cheaply has a fair chance of survival &
promotion without necessarily having to radically hone their skills.
In other words, rather than the use of tables for layout causing
sloppy coding, the two behaviors are correlative, both able to
survive, in individuals working in a sheltered environment. Just
because they predominantly occur together doesn't mean that one
causes the other. Hummingbirds' long beaks didn't cause their
ability to hover nor the other way around, but instead the two traits
co-evolved. It's a small but crucial distinction.
And not merely academic: I think one reason your remarks raised such
a flurry of irritated response was your implication that the use of
layout tables leads to untidy coding -- them's fightin' words to any
careful coder who still uses tables that way. If you drop the
element of causality you'll still have an interesting & powerful
correlation to discuss.
Warm regards,
Paul
I guess that's what is one of the many annoying things about this
"debate". Its very subjective. This particular thread started when I
reported a strong factual correlation between tabled based pages and
invalid pages in research I am doing. From then on its been largely
handwaving and opinions.
The simple fact remains, that in my research into some of the biggest
and most popular Australian web sites, not a single site out of about
100 I have surveyed, which is table based has been valid. And the
errors in table based sites have been almost invariably associated
with the table markup.
The correlation is strong.
john
John Allsopp
style master :: css editor :: http://westciv.com/style_master
support forum :: http://support.westciv.com
blog :: dog or higher :: http://blogs.westciv.com/dog_or_higher
Web Essentials web development conference http://we05.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
******************************************************
******************************************************
The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
******************************************************
