HTML WG approve tables for presentational purposes

[awasson]

So you're using bad markup to ameliorate a bad system, because it's too complicated to get a CMS working properly? And people wonder why I have to spit over my shoulder every time I say "CMS"...

Nope... It's working fine and the markup is valid. It's because whoever created the particular module that puts out the markup thinks it's ok to use tables for this data. Arguably it is ok too because generally these modules are used to create a grid of serialized links.

* I could preprocess the output if I wanted to be that critical but I don't see how the additional cost would benefit my clients.

[felgall]

One thing to remember is that there are now some browsers that do not allow the table borders to be turned off (there's at least one browser for mobile devices that does this) and so if a table is used for layout then it will be extremely obvious in those browsers where the cell borders run through the page content.

[deathshadow60]

Accessibility; DIV and TABLE wrap same way; W3-recognized vs cross-browser-tested

CHRISTMAS ON A CRACKER that's some fist-full of ugly code in that thread. Mein gott where's that nun with the metal yardstick I learned coding from when you need her. (I'm looking at that and depending on the images and contnet wonder why it even has an IMG tag).

Let's see if I can make sense of the rest of your post... Apologies but I'm having great difficulty deciphering your posts... Almost as much trouble as I have with your DECADE OUT OF DATE code... from what I'm seeing your HTML looks about as good as my French.

Separating presentation and meaning (as you seem to imply with your "letting the user agent best adjust the content") came much later and IMO is NOT in the same spirit of logical, reasonable, simple, clear design.

Then you need to learn more about HTML and why it exists. One of the entire reasons it was created was that at the time no two possible devices had the same capabilities -- a situation we still have today. Back then you had screens ranging from 22x21 text only to 1280x1024 fully addressable... you had daisy wheel printers, line printers, teletypes, and a whole host of other devices in use to which you might send a document. One of the entire core purposes of HTML was that no matter what the device, the output could be customized to the target without losing meaning. Didn't matter if it was a C=64, a NeXT workstation, a DEC Rainbow, VT-100 Terminal, Model 33 Teleprinter, or some massive supercomputer that hadn't even been dreamed up yet, you could customize the output thanks to the markup saying what things 'are', and then letting the user agent best determine how to show it.

Which is why TBL's prototype browser actually had what today we'd call "user stylesheets"... customizing for screen capabilities or print capabilities... the idea being that user agents (browsers) not web developers would be the ones to determine how to best present the meaning of the markup. It's why the specification is still filled with "would, could, may, might, typically" and not a whole lot of "should" or "must".

Votes from the People, no matter through poll stations or their wallets, are IMO not less valuable than decisions from a small group as W3; checking what actually works in real world of the majority of the People is IMO not less valuable or important than what is compliant to this or that official rule or statement. So, thanks for your pointing above something that does fail in real world; OTOH, "bgColor and no quotes" (which does work everywhere with no problem at all, and that for this reason is used in plenty sites and programs) is OK for me.

Sorry, but that feels remarkably like it should be one of the lame excuses for not being a web professional...(specifically "it gets the job done")

Not following rules or guidelines set down as best practices just makes more work for anyone stuck trying to maintain it, and quite often wastes bandwidth... yes, wastes it because external style is cached across pages; markup is not. (another of the reasons separation of presentation from content is a good thing).

Sleazing out HTML 3.2 with late 90's style presentational markup is nothing more than crapping out the page any old way, and it does cost in terms of ease of maintennance, speed of development, consumption of bandwidth, and a whole host of other issues -- which is WHY that approach to coding is repeatedly given a kick in the crotch by anyone with even the most basic understanding of how this stuff works. Sleazy shortcuts and decade out of date methodologies are sleazy shortcuts and decade out of date methodologies -- no matter how you color them.

Just because something works doesn't mean it won't bite you in the backside eventually.