[UPHPU] Validation

Brandon Stout hplsbyufan at imapmail.org
Tue Jun 6 08:05:37 MDT 2006

Mac Newbold wrote:
> Today at 1:33pm, Tyler Gee said:
>>> I disagree, of course, someone has to.  I can do a tableless site very
>>> quickly and the code is cleaner, more easy to understand, and much
>>> easier
>>> to modify and works well in all the browsers I test (which of course
>>> only
>>> the most popular).  However, I do not think tables are evil, like many
>>> people do.  Tables were made for tabular data and work very well for
>>> that.
>>> In fact, if I had to choose tableless over tables for tabular data, I
>>> usualy choose tables.  That is what they were made for.
>>> Jonathan
>> I would agree with the disagreement. :)  Tables are great for tabular
>> data but definitely not for layout.  Working with div's is way easier
>> and allows way more control.
> I have yet to see something you can do with a div that you can't do
> with a table, so I would argue that there is at least as much control
> with a table as there is with a div. (Contrived examples excluded. And
> no, I'm not advocating using single-cell tables instead of divs when
> divs are appropriate.)
> My biggest problem with people who want to eliminate tables from their
> code, except for "tabular data", is that there still are things you
> can't do with divs on current browsers that you can do with tables. In
> fact, I don't even think it is a browser issue, but a shortcoming in
> the standards themselves if they are advocating the deprecation of
> tables entirely.
> A frequent component in designs that I am asked to implement for web
> sites are what I'll call a "tabular layout" or a "fluid tabular
> layout" (FTL for short). This would be where there's somewhat of a
> grid built into the page, where things line up with each other. Take a
> web page, and draw the major lines that divide the content areas...
> often it breaks down into a 2, 3, 4, 6, 9, etc. -celled table along
> those guidelines. Now you can build that just fine with divs. But what
> you cannot accomplish without tables is allowing the size of those
> areas to be fluid, growing to fit the content as needed, while still
> making sure that all the cells in the same row stay the same height,
> and all the cells in the same column stay the same width, without
> fixing them to a pre-determined static width. Tables do this so
> painfully simply that it could be called effortless. I supply some
> "best guess" widths and heights in the form of numbers, percentages,
> or whatever, and it handles the maintenance of the actual dimensions
> of each cell, maintaining all the consistency for me. That is what I
> call a "fluid tabular layout", and so far nobody has been able to show
> me a good one that is done without using tables. I don't restrict my
> definition of "data" too much, so to me "tabular data" is what a fluid
> tabular layout is, though others would say data can't be graphical, or
> must be textual, or can't be this or that, but to me it is all data,
> and I don't feel bad at all using a table for it, especially since
> there's not another good way to meet all those requirements without
> using tables.
> One thing I've started to see more and more are atrociously huge CSS
> files that are bloated, disorganized, hard to follow, and just plain
> too big. It is a lot harder to add easy-to-follow structure into your
> CSS file, because you can't nest definitions like you can nest HTML
> tags. You can't break CSS into functional units like you can with PHP
> code. The most you can do is break things into separate files, but
> then chasing through all the files to keep track of the cascading and
> inheritance that is going on becomes a huge headache. The HTML is
> there for a reason, and if we use HTML appropriately, it doesn't take
> a CSS file that is longer than your HTML page to make it look nice.
> Back on the main subject of this thread, validation, I think it is
> good to pressure browser makers to produce compliant engines that
> implement the standard correctly and consistently. When everyone
> implements the same standard, our world will get a lot simpler and
> we'll be able to stop wasting time checking pages in every browser. I
> yearn for the day when a standards-compliant page that looks horrible
> in Browser X (I won't name names) is the fault of Browser X and
> SuperCorp Y that makes Browser X, not the fault of the site or its
> creator. I long for a time when pages coded to broken standards that
> have been "embraced and extended" and therefore look terrible on
> compliant browsers, are the fault of their creators, not shortcomings
> of the compliant browsers that refuse to cave in to the rediculous
> "features" that Browser X advocates. When users take that attitude,
> and choose the browsers that do best with their pages, I will truly
> rejoice, and the web will be a much more beautiful and fun place.
> Until then, I make my code comply to a standard as much as possible,
> with an eye to the future, and another on practicality. In a job where
> time is money, and saving money for my clients helps my business, I
> will do things in the best, quickest, most efficient, way I can, and
> until coding in XHTML strict meets those criteria for me and my
> coworkers, we'll use XHTML transitional, or HTML transitional, or
> whatever it is that gives us the best results in the least amount of
> time with the fewest headaches.
> On a side note, it's nice that we're able to carry off conversations
> like this on such charged topics without degenerating into flame wars.
> And nobody has mentioned top or bottom posting or even trimming once.
> So that is one reason why UPHPU is better than so many other lists.
> The friendly environment really does make a huge difference and I
> think helps us all to get more out of our associations with each
> other. So thanks to everyone!
> Thanks,
> Mac
> -- 
> Mac Newbold        MNE - Mac Newbold Enterprises, LLC
> mac at macnewbold.com    http://www.macnewbold.com/

I go for table-less layout when it seems simple enough, but there's
another reason for table-based layout.  I use a table for my resume:


I do this even though I got it to look the same in a table-less design
across all major browsers, including "browser x" :) .  Why?  Some people
do not want a web resume - they insist on proprietary formatted .doc or
.pdf files.  In these cases, the table layout preserves my formatting
better when I do either of these with OpenOffice.org:

 open http://res.mscis.org directly
 copy/paste it

OOo is not a browser, and therefore doesn't support CSS like a browser
ought to.

While I'm on the topic, http://res.mscis.org is also the beginning of a
project I own:  phpMyResume on SF.net.  If anyone would like to help
with this project let me know, but probably reply to me, not the list.

Brandon Stout

More information about the UPHPU mailing list