> Al Sparber > I guess your assertion hinges on how one interprets the word > "should". > Perhaps I am English-challenged, but I always took "should" to have a > suggestive or advisory connotation, while "shall" or "must" are > obligatory :-)
http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2119.txt "3. SHOULD This word, or the adjective "RECOMMENDED", mean that there may exist valid reasons in particular circumstances to ignore a particular item, but the full implications must be understood and carefully weighed before choosing a different course." So yes, compatibility with older browsers would be one of those valid reasons...but "ignoring a particular item" to me means going against/outside of the standard/specification, thus hacking/perverting. Maybe just me being pedantic (me? never!) ;-) > What I am saying is that they are not the opposite of CSS. But CSS is the de-facto preferred way of defining layout of (X)HTML documents, and using tables for layout is a case of ignoring a particular item in the HTML spec. Ah well, it probably does come down to the interpretation of how strong a recommendation "should" really is. P ________________________________ Patrick H. Lauke Web Editor / University of Salford http://www.salford.ac.uk ________________________________ Web Standards Project (WaSP) Accessibility Task Force http://webstandards.org/ ________________________________ ****************************************************** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list & getting help ******************************************************
