Sometimes you can find things out in the wild of the world wide web which are indeed funny. For example i found at decloak arguments against lean semantic markup and pro those long known layout tables. These arguments should get a closer look.
fully integrated CSS benefits are challenged on their practicality and real-life usefulness fully integrated means replacing all
divtags a.k.a. CSS-P or css tables.
Standards conformant web design is not alt all about replacing every single
table tag with a
That doesn't make sense at all. Standards conformant web design is about
using all html elements for their intended purpose.
So the purpose of code
table are tables, and
the purpose of
div are general purpose containers.
So in standards conformant web design
used for tables and
div ist used for layout.
As can easily be seen, standards conformant web design of course uses
tables: For implementing tables, simple that is. They are not used
as workaround for layout issues.
VERY IMPORTANT NOTE:
The terms, CSS and CSS-P (or full css) are two (2) very different things in this article. The term "CSS" is more of the regular CSS used for font styles and the like. The term, "CSS-P", is specifically referring to use of
divtags to replace
tabletags. This article challenges CSS-P, not CSS.
Well then a real web designer may freely forget this topic, since standards conformant web design is never about replacing tables with divs. So this is denoting an absolute irrelevant topic.
Are they any benefits to using a fully CSS integrated solution (css tables or CSS-P)?
No. There is no "real-life" or practical benefits when you start to replace each-and-every-single
divtags and attempt to use full CSS to display your webpages properly across popular browsers.
It's one thing to use the regular CSS style to replace the same fonts that will be used all over the place. But it's another when you take little bits and pieces of code out of the page and bury it some huge .css file and then try to figure out and try to remember where they all came from and what each piece of code did 2 months from now
This is right. It would be really meaningless to replace all
Da hat er gar nicht mal so Unrecht. Es wäre tatsächlich völlig sinnlos, wahllos
table tags with
div tags. This could indeed lead to chaos. But since
standard conformant web design is not at all about that, you may deliberately ignore this.
It is of no relevance.
K.i.S.S. is more important than CSS or CSS-P
K.i.S.S. = Keep It Simple Stupid
KISS has worked from the beginning of time and works not only in web design but in a lot of other things: from business, to journalism, to graphic design, to fashion, to science, to medicine, to engineering, etc.
And if it's one thing that FULL CSS isn't, it's simple, as there is a considerable learning curve to implementing CSS-P as opposed to just CSS. And by the way, there is the actual implementation of full CSS, which is also complex. And FULL CSS has tons and tons of hacks and so-called work around just to get it to work right even in the latest browsers IE 6 and Netscape 7. And that's not even mentioning the Mac browser versions.
CSS still (after all these years) can't even get the most basic font sizes to display consistently even in the latest browsers like IE 6 and Netscape 7.
Richtig ist, daß css-basiertes standardkonformes Webdesign eine gewisse Lernkurve hat.
Diese Lernkurve ist genauso vorhanden wie sie zu Zeiten von html 3.2 und Tabellenlayout
auch vorhanden war. Dazu kommt noch, daß man nicht nur css lernen muß, sondern
liebgewonnene alte Verhaltensweisen und Denkweisen verlernen muß.
Das, was man damals als Notbehelf lernen mußte, ist heute nun nicht mehr notwendig.
Doch alte Denkweisen halten sich sehr lang.
Absolutely right. The K.i.S.S. principle is universal. Not true is standards
compliant semantic markup being complicated. The contrary is true. If you use
html elements the way they where intended by their inventors, this
leads to very simple and readable code. Only the completely unapplicable attempt
to replace tables with divs leads to chaos.
True is, css based standards conformant web design has a learning curve. It's the same learning curve as in the time of html 3.2 and table layout. Additionally you first have to forget old habits. Things necessary as a workaround in the old days are no longer necessary today.
Do you honestly believe it, CSS-P, can start doing tables when even plain CSS can't get the fonts consistent across all browsers? K.I.S.S. means keep it simple stupid and that means tables because tables are simple. And they also work!.
Never! I would never have the stupid idea to simulate tables with divs. This would be contrary to all ideas about semantic markup. For tables i use tables, and for layout i use divs. Logically, consequently and it's working! It's working not only in mainstream browsers, but equally good with screenreaders. One simple code, readable, maintainable, and without hacks or alternate versions for screen readers or braille display or whatever.
The future of the web is "FULL CSS", and not TABLES, so you should start learning it now.
What happens if Microsoft introduces a few new features to IE 7 that Mozilla doesn't have OR won't support OR that W3C won't call a standard? Microsoft did that before and they will specifically go out of their way to do that again and again to make sure their browser is NOT 100% standard-give-away-my-secret-sauce to the open source world.
Has that anything to do with standards conformant web desing? I don't know, what. If Microsoft adds a non-standard feature not supported by all, then this is a problem of Microsoft, not my problem. I do pages usable for all. Why should i have the idea of excluding a significant number of potential visitors intentionally? This would be destructive. Artificial limitation to a specific audience is unnecessary.
Say if Microsoft, on purpose, makes a slight adjustment to a few critical CSS format styles so that it will display a CSS attribute differently than in Mozilla or Opera? Now your web page looks right in IE 7, but you will have to write extra code to detect Mozilla.
The contrary is true. If, as postulated here, Microsoft would modify the IE to not render standards compliant web page correctly, then a standars compliant web page does not hsow right in the IE, but it shows right in standards conformant browsers. The hacks would then be needed for the IE, not for those standards compliant browsers.
Microsoft has a hard enough time trying to get their software to work and out the door, do you honestly think they are going to sit around waiting for the W3C committee to make up their minds on the next standard or regularly consult with any Mozilla programmers to make sure their's browser works with IE?
Well, the W3C standards are the common base for all internet users. Why should the Mozilla be IE-compatible? The standard is the W3C, not the IE.
Microsoft will NEVER make their browser 100% W3C compliant as they always keep adding new features. In fact, all Microsoft's products are not 100% standards compliant because they will always have something to add to the latest product.
Well, that's not my problem either. The common base for all are the W3C standards. Whoever leaves them will definitely exclude some (or many) Visitors.
As you can see, Microsoft doesn't even make it's own websites 100% cross-browser friendly, do you think Microsoft is going to make IE 7 display pages just like Mozilla does? It's also the same for Apple's browser, Safari. Steve Jobs understands business. Do you see *critical" parts of their Apple computer like the OS being made by a 3rd party company like you do with the PC computer. No! And guess what? You are going to see the same for their Safari browser with regards to non-compliance to not working with IE. Lots of websites do not work in Safari, but work in IE.
If Microsoft would exclude users of other Browsers from their site, this would be their problem. I would not advise for it, economically seen. Just imagine a Ford car seller prohibiting owners of say Toyota cars from visiting his car shop and not selling Ford cars to owners of Toyota cars. Of course he could do that. But would it make sense?
Steve Jobs blinked! Apple is going to use Intel CPUs but is this a so-called standard like the W3C. No It's not. Apple "choose" to use Intel chips. Accordingly, Intel's architecture is not set by some outside committee. There is a big difference between W3C 's recommendations and real standards that everyone agrees with.
Obviously the author does not know the difference betwenn an industry standard and a public standard. Intel chips are somewhat an industry standard. The W3C standards are public standards. And how should i understand the last sentence? I do support the W3C standards. Am i then "nobody"?
Ask yourself, "Where do *standards* really come from and how does something become a *real true standard* in the first place?"
When Microsoft adds a new feature to IE 7, do you honestly think Bill Gates is going to go to Mozilla and say, "Hey Guys, please add OUR new feature to your competing browser so you can lower our browser market share." Come on!!! Mr. Bill or whoever is in charge would be voted off the board of directors ASAP.and the stock would drop immediately. Fortunately, Mr. Bill owns so many shares that's not going to happen.
Even if Bill Gates would do this, the Mozilla developers would not agree. Simple because not Microsoft represents the Internet standard, but the W3C. Microsoft is in the W3C team. So they could recommend their new feature for standardisation. If it becomes a public standard then the Mozilla team will implement it. Of course the Microsoft way is to try to enforce the "Microsoft standard" as a monopoly for the whole world. Like that it wohld be possible to eliminate other market shares. This is a legal interest of Microsoft, but obviously not of the most of us.
So CSS purists can kiss Apple's Safari browser goodbye to your list of compatible browsers as long as Steve Jobs is CEO of Apple. ( ref ) And you definitely can say "hasta la vista" to IE 7 as long as Mr. Bill and Mr. Ballmer are running the show. Is AOL's browser compatible with other browsers? NO, NO, NO.
Well, good to know. So it seems i have these possibilities:
- I'm creating pages for IE. These are not usable wit Apple products like Safari, nor with Mozilla or any other browsers.
- I'm creating pages for Apple Safari. Tey are not usable with IE, Mozilla or other browsers.
- I'm creating pages for standards compliant web browsers. They may be used in any standards compliant web browser, excluding IE and Apply Safari.
Fortunatelly neither Microsoft nor Apple are so silly. Standards conformant pages are usable on any browser, including IE and Safari.
That's competition in a capitalist economy and you better get used to it.
Sure, no problem. I personally do not want to limit myself to a single product of a single company. I prefere to choose. And many others do so, too. Let the market decide that.
Dear CSS zealots and Standards fanatics:
Money doesn't grow on trees so not everyone can afford to get the latest Windows OS. (or for that matter the latest Mac OS) And people could care less if it's CSS-P site or not as most people don't even know what CSS is anyway.
So your website had better work on the browser that THEY have right now; NOT the browser you want them to use cause they can't always afford the next OS / browser; nor do they always have the time to install the latest browser to display your latest creation or CSS hack.
That's how the real world works; which is a lot different than what some author's CSS and/or standards book you read would like it to be.
Absolutely right. I do not enforce the usage of IE or MS Windows (whatever version). Standards conformant web pages do work in any browser, luckily in IE and Safari, too.
Maybe, if i have time, i'll complete commenting. But much of it is that stupid i just could knock my head on the keyboard.