[UPHPU] Validation

[Mac Newbold]

Today at 9:35am, Wade Preston Shearer said:

> Tables are not bad; misusing tables is bad? just like misusing any tag 
> or technology is bad. Tables should not be used for layout. That is not 
> what they were created for.

I think I might disagree with you on this, by saying that layout is one of 
the perfectly valid and reasonable purposes of tables. In fact, I could 
say that marking up tabular, spreadsheet-like data was the exact purpose 
of a table, so they are _purely_ for layout, but I don't know if I can go 
that far. In any case, I may just have to agree to disagree on this point.

> Tables are to organized tabular data or information. Does 
> this mean that they can only be used for text (like a spreadsheet)? No. If you 
> have something like a catalogue or a bunch of profiles with images and text 
> that should be tabular (multiple rows and columns), then use a table? that's 
> what it's for.

I think I agree with all of this.

> But the skeleton and main structure of your site shouldn't be one giant 
> table.

I agree with this except in the (common?) case where the main skeleton and 
structure of your site is basically tabular, with multiple rows and 
columns. But you probably disagree with that :)

> People need to stop thinking of pages like a flat piece of paper or the 
> whole "slices" thing. If you design by slicing up your layout, they your 
> site is limited and bloated. You need to think two dimensionally? in 
> layers. Don't think of a web page as a "sheet," like you would a 
> brochure. Think of as media, like television. Build it with only the 
> blocks you need instead of filling in all of the cells like you were 
> using a spreadsheet.

Until we have 3d browsers and are capable of meaningfully using that third 
dimension, pages _are_ two dimentional, and therefore basically flat. Yes 
there are layers, but the end result you get is still flat. Generally the 
way people choose to present data on such a flat surface is with a set of 
areas that completely cover the surface, though perhaps with multiple 
layers that are each composed of non-overlapping areas. In order to make 
such a page, where every area is covered with something, you _do_ need to 
cover every part of the page, sort of like filling in all the cells in a 
spreadsheet. Often this is done with a background of some kind, then the 
real content layered on top of it somehow, which makes good sense. Even 
when using a table, we only fill in the data blocks that we need, and 
anything else is just an empty cell, or a cell full of whitespace.

One of my objections to the way many people use XHTML+CSS is that they 
depend completely on CSS for positioning anything or giving any kind of 
indication as to a block's purpose or function in a page. So when you look 
at their markup document, it looks like a bunch of text snippets and 
nothing more. The markup is used purely for containers, and often not even 
nested ones. That to me is taking it to the other extreme, where instead 
of using markup to convey structure _and_ layout/appearance, to making the 
markup not even convey a structure at all.

Mac

--
Mac Newbold		MNE - Mac Newbold Enterprises, LLC
mac at macnewbold.com	http://www.macnewbold.com/