On Sat, 2007-04-14 at 13:57 -0400, tedd wrote: > At 11:12 AM -0400 4/14/07, Robert Cummings wrote: > > > At 9:07 PM -0400 4/13/07, Robert Cummings wrote: > > >I noticed your site isn't a pixel perfect layout. > > >Who said pixel perfect image? > > You did -- pixel perfect image or pixel perfect layout, what's the difference? > > >Now make pixel perfect stretchy pages where the widths > >expand to fill the available horizontal and heights expand to fill the > >available vertical. > > Now, you introduce a "pixel perfect stretchy" term -- is this one of > those moving targets where no one can provide a solution because the > target keeps moving? A stretchy website stretches it's content area to accomodate the width of the browser. I'm quite sure you knew this, either that, or you're not reading enough. > Just show me an example where you can do your "pixel perfect > stretchy" thing with tables that can't be done by css. Sorry, I do most of my work behind intranet firewalls. But see my remarks below... > --- > > > > As for the box-model issue, I've faced that, such as in: > >> > >> http://www.symboldomains.com/ > > > >This is a simplistice layout. It doesn't have the same issues as 3 > >column layouts. > > You want three column layouts, there's plenty around. See: > > http://css-discuss.incutio.com/?page=ThreeColumnLayouts They ALL use some kind of hack or are not stretchy. > Or just Google "three column layout". It seems that others don't have > the problems with it as you do. > > --- > >Also, you are using CSS hacks... just as bad as tables > >IMHO. > > > A couple of points: > > 1. If it's *just* as bad, then why not use the one that's at least accessible? There's a future cost to using hacks when the hacks no longer work... this should be apparent to all those that used IE hacks and then suddenly in IE7 only some worked, or only partially worked. > 2. If you're against using hacks, then you're sounding like one of > those "sitting on your glass pedestal better than thou" types you > accused me of being. Leveraging the effects of a bug is not a foundation upon which to build anything. The web was practically built on tables to begin with, so the foundations are already strong in that arena. > Table supporters can't have it both ways. On hand some say that they > are above using hacks and on the other hand they say it's OK to use > tables. Tables were never designed for that and using them that way > is a hack -- plain and simple! At one point, the only way to layout content was using tables. CSS didn't exist at that time, plain and simple. Besides... there's this from the W3C accessibility guidelines: ---------------------------- 5.2 Tables for layout Checkpoints in this section: 5.3 Do not use tables for layout unless the table makes sense when linearized. Otherwise, if the table does not make sense, provide an alternative equivalent (which may be a linearized version). [Priority 2] 5.4 If a table is used for layout, do not use any structural markup for the purpose of visual formatting. [Priority 2] Authors should use style sheets for layout and positioning. However, when it is necessary to use a table for layout, the table must linearize in a readable order. When a table is linearized, the contents of the cells become a series of paragraphs (e.g., down the page) one after another. Cells should make sense when read in row order and should include structural elements (that create paragraphs, headings, lists, etc.) so the page makes sense after linearization. Also, when using tables to create a layout, do not use structural markup to create visual formatting. For example, the TH (table header) element, is usually displayed visually as centered, and bold. If a cell is not actually a header for a row or column of data, use style sheets or formatting attributes of the element. ---------------------------- They allow for the use of tables, and I follow that convention. I currently feel it is "necessary" at times to use tables. > If you want to use tables, that's fine -- but don't suggest that one > of your reasons is that you are above using hacks. I don't use any CSS hacks based on bugs unless a client specifically requests a feature that cannot be done otherwise. Event then I advise against it. > >"Correctly" is a moving target... shouldn't you be moving away from > >HTML4.01 strict to XHTML already? ;) > > Maybe, but what I do is still compliant. Me too. I'm XHTML 1.0 strict compliant in new sites. > >Are you implied 12% of the population visiting websites are disabled in > >such a way as to benefit from CSS? That's seems a tad high. Maybe 1%... > >if that. > > Aging seniors are in that group (myself included) -- you think that > we are less than 1 percent of the population? I think not. As my > baby-boomer group continues, the problem will become even more so. > > Additionally, I think you grossly underestimate the number of people > who have disability related problems with sites, that's unfortunate, > but typical for people who don't. Maybe, I'm no demographics expert. I'm also not footing the bill. > > > The whole point of making a web site is to sell something -- ether a > >> product, a service, an opinion, yourself, or whatever. The larger the > >> audience, the more successful you will be. Using css brings in more > >> people. > > > >Please back up that claim with real statistics. > > Likewise, back up your claim otherwise with real statistics. As you > know there are no "real statistics" and that's a red herring. Statistics are easy to find: http://www.frontpagewebmaster.com/m-281187/tm.htm#281187 Maybe Google isn't accessible enough for you (it uses tables after all ;) > > > On this we disagree. I have found nothing that tables can do that I > >> can't do with css AND do it more effectively and efficiently. > > > >Yes, I disagree, I trust that I'm far more productive to than you > >*grin*. > > > You probably are -- and that's why you get paid the big bucks. > > But, I trust that I am more compliant than you. :-) That depends on where you draw your conclusions of compliance. > > > The box-model problem and float considerations can be easily dealt > >> with IF you truly understand the problem they present. There are > >> things you can use to illustrate the problems just like in php. > > > >Awww, see now you're trying to talk down to me as if I'm new to CSS. > > My apologies -- it was not my intent to talk down to you, but to > simply state a fact. > > >Awww, you really are treating me like an idiot now *lol*. I'm well aware > >of using borders to reveal where things are. > > Again, my apologies I'm not trying to treat you like an idiot -- > there are other people reading this list and I don't want them to get > the misconception you promote that css is flawed and tables are the > only solution. IMHO CSS is NOT flawed, not once have I said CSS was flawed, I have said some of the most important implementations are flawed, and as such for some things CSS is not yet the perfect tool. I love CSS, I want it to fully work, it's fantastic for separating presentation for markup. > In any event, we have beat this to death -- you have your practice > and I have mine. As always, there is more than one way to do anything. Yup. Cheers, Rob. -- .------------------------------------------------------------. | InterJinn Application Framework - http://www.interjinn.com | :------------------------------------------------------------: | An application and templating framework for PHP. Boasting | | a powerful, scalable system for accessing system services | | such as forms, properties, sessions, and caches. InterJinn | | also provides an extremely flexible architecture for | | creating re-usable components quickly and easily. | `------------------------------------------------------------' -- PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/) To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
