From: "Patrick Lauke" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <wsg@webstandardsgroup.org>
Sent: Monday, December 12, 2005 9:50 AM
Subject: RE: [WSG] CSS Driven?
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.
--------------------------------------------------
Yes. And that we are approaching the discussion cordially, indicates a
healthy approach to the standards and recommendations with the primary
difference being our opinions. Sadly, this is rare :-)
******************************************************
The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
******************************************************
