Merikallio and Pratt
Bill Merikallio and Adam Pratt have put together a brilliant and beautiful presentation on the rationale behind using structured markup and CSS to design web pages: Why tables for layout is stupid: problems defined, solutions offered. 32 pages of required reading.
Via Accessify.com
3 Comments (skip to form)
Leave a Comment
Comment Information and Guidelines
- Trackback URI for this post
- Comments are the properties of their posters.
- Email addresses will never be shown or shared with third parties.
- Offensive, distasteful, and irrelevant comments will be deleted.
-
HTML is optional, but if you do use it, please make sure that:
- markup is well-formed and valid XHTML 1.1
- ampersands (&) are encoded as
& - angle brackets (< and >) are encoded as
<and> -
HTML allowed (please close tags):
sergio
Comment on October 28, 2003 at 8:04 pm
Excellent suggestion Lars. Just added it to the news at my site. One thing, though: I've never known what all the fuzz is about the tag. Everywhere I see markup proponents saying that using is much better, but I don't see what the problem is. The end result is the same, and by now everyone knows that stands for bold, so I fail to see the benefit. And it has the added problem of being a longer tag which interfers more when visually skimming the code, not to mention that it does take more bytes to download =)
Lars Holst
Comment on October 29, 2003 at 2:06 pm
I couldn't agree with you more Sergio. I am really surprised by the amount of confusion involved here. I have even seen people (who should know better) argue that the
andelements are deprecated in XHTML.A quick glance at the XHTML 1.1 Document Type will reveal that this is not true.
They do, however, belong to the presentation module, and I suppose some of the confusion stems from the fact that people use these elements for non-presentational purposes.
Either way, there is a clear need for these elements. I would even argue that it is more harmful to use
andfor non-semantic reasons, than it is to useandfor semantic reasons (although I may get the semantic mob after me for saying this). There was a discussion on this over at Anne van Kesteren's weblog, with some good comments.Another thing I find hard to understand is how people can argue that
foois "better" thanfoo?Perhaps we should form a secret society for an increased understanding of
and?sergio
Comment on October 29, 2003 at 4:30 pm
Hahahahah!!! Thanks, that made my day. =)
I'm reading the discussion on Anne's blog. Interesting...