> As for a standards-based > page, agreeing that it is not a hard and fast rule that tables be > banned for layout, can you present some logical arguments against this > page - keeping strictly within the context of standards: > http://www.projectseven.com/csslab/zealotry/linear_basics.htm
I would pose the counter question: agreeing that it could have been done easily enough in CSS, why use a table? ... But, anyway, arguments against that example: 1) The standards say tables aren't for layout; this page uses a table for layout; it is not a standards-compliant page. Whether it validates or not, it is not true to the intention of the standard ... your opinion may differ, but that's mine :) 2) Building in a table means the page won't display so well on a small screen device - it's wide, small screens are mostly narrow (sony psp aside... :)). The side-by-side design also means it wouldn't lend itself to a zoom layout either. 3) The table means you are tied to that specific layout for the life of the page (or you have to modify every single page to change the layout). You can't use CSS to switch the navigation to the other side or any nifty tricks like that. Of course, that might not be an issue - but the example doesn't give a scenario so let's assume longevity and maintenance are a factor. At work I deal with a site with 20,000+ pages so these factors are big for us :) 4) Screen readers will hear the table before the content. Depending on their settings, users will be hearing "2-column page layout table" instead of getting into the content. In the grand scheme of things, not the end of the world. But it's not necessary. Accepting the break from pure standards; it's not bad. I have actually recommended people use simple layout tables when other solutions fail; or as a transition stage from tables to CSS. Some specific things like vertical centring are still poorly supported in CSS (or more accurately, poorly supported in browsers). The example certainly doesn't prove that tables are ok for layout; just that you can build something which does use a table for layout and is still ok. To put it another way, if you were to put that in production I wouldn't really care; there are far bigger problems to tackle ;) h -- --- <http://www.200ok.com.au/> --- The future has arrived; it's just not --- evenly distributed. - William Gibson ****************************************************** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list & getting help ******************************************************
