digital-web.com — If you’re hard at work day in, day out, chipping away at the rock face of professional web development, it’s sometimes easy to get lost in the details—and when we’re talking about an organization that moves as slowly as the W3C, you can be forgiven for taking your eye off the larger picture. David Andersson gets us up to speed on what may soon be c
Apr 10, 2007 View in Crawl 4
bevansdesignApr 11, 2007
Notice how many of these posts come down to 2 basic concepts:Microsoft & IE: BADAnything else: GOODThat's Digg for ya.
lennalfApr 11, 2007
"Tables disgusting? Ridiculous thing to say."I believe he means tables are disgusting when used for layout. Everybody knows tables can and should be used to represent data; That is not in question here. The topic at hand is layout. And while I can agree that tables are "reliable" for layout, I think it is definitely true that going about it in such a way does lead to some pretty "disgusting" code.I, for one, am very glad that I no longer have to put up with horrendous table hacks for layout.
mysteryfcmApr 11, 2007
I always design for a min 800x600 with the site being able to adjust to anything larger - I refuse to be told I *have* to design for anything larger "because it's standard", no it fecking isn't!!.
mscripApr 11, 2007
> "I, for one, am very glad that I no longer have to put up with horrendous table hacks for layout."Amen to that. I've recently switched to CSS and it's so much better.But... do you remember a time before CSS? There were millions of websites built in the early days of the web, before CSS and before CSS compliant browsers. Remember the web from 1995-2002? People who scream "tables are not for layout" probably didn't build a website before 2002. Tables were the only way to do some sort of layout back then. Do you really think we went from simple text based websites straight to pretty rounded corner CSS websites overnight? ESPN.com announced their 'switch' to CSS in 2003. Many other huge websites made the switch around the same time. There's no denying the benefits of building CSS websites today. But, remember how the web was built in the good ol' days.
mscripApr 11, 2007
> "I think that the 800px width has become a standard"800px 'was' a standard... when most people's CRT screens were 800x600.Today, the minimum sized LCD screen is 1024x768... with many 1280x1024. 800px is far to narrow on today's screens.I usually build a 950 width website... or a fluid layout.
vofuseApr 11, 2007
Who are these "big name clients" still using IE at 800x600? I'd like to hear actual names...
shanmacApr 11, 2007
I still think XHTML2 is the way to go in a purist sense. Sure it is not backward compatible with stock HTML, but sometimes in tech you have to take a Quantum leap. HTML5 is just appeasing the masses (and oddly enough some web developers too). Plus, HTML5 would not have a working standard until at least 2010. The XHTML group at the W3C has been around for some time now. I may be wrong, but I am putting my bet on the semantic web and XHTML2.
pnrlApr 11, 2007
CSS *does* have vertical-alignment (for display:table-cell) and *can* easily accomodate variable widths (display:table-cell or box-sizing:border-box) - it's not problem with CSS lacking these abilities, it's problem with Microsoft's IE inability to handle CSS fully and properly.
pnrlApr 11, 2007
"HTML5 is just appeasing the masses"These masses are our users/clients who have no idea what's the difference between HTML, XHTML and even what a browser is. They click their "internet" on the desktop and want it to work. HTML5 works for them, XHTML2 does not. Sadly, it's very unlikely to change in the next decade.