- From: Al Gilman <asgilman@access.digex.net>
- Date: Wed, 10 Dec 1997 12:14:50 -0500 (EST)
- To: w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
> On Mon, 8 Dec 1997, Chuck Letourneau wrote: > > > After reading the rest of Daniel's message, I saw that TABLES came up > > again. Why don't we use this thread to discuss the "required versus > > recommended" status of advising against tables for layout of text wherever > > it appears? > > JW:: [snip] > The abuse of table markup is simply wrong in principle, as it > is contrary to the meaning and intention of the HTML. Such > practice should be consistently discouraged, particularly once > an alternative, namely CSS positioning, is widely available. ASG:: Enforcing some "meaning" or "intention" for HTML structures such as TABLE that is narrower than the range of useful things that the structure can and will do for you will likely be futile. HTML is a win because it is so natural. The rule of natural language is "Whatever works." This is short for the orthodox sentence "Whatever works, goes." The syntactically unorthodox form is frequently used because it is usually understood. Occam's razor applies to languages and media. The fewer rules one has to follow to get one's point across, the more desirable the language or medium. -- Al
Received on Wednesday, 10 December 1997 12:15:39 UTC