Re: [MACCAWS] Zeldman on Tables

Tom wrote:
> I'm glad to see someone else agrees with the "transitional" theory.
> There is no doubt that these types of sites are a move in the right
> direction. When we start dealing with real companies as an
> organization, plan on seeing a LOT of this.
> 
> I've been redesigning one of my own sites using pure CSS, and let me
> tell you, my finger keeps twitching toward that table tag. I'm not
> going to do it, but if it were a commercial site - I would have
> already done it.

I agree. I don't think that we have to be totally hardcore about people
using XHTML and divs with NO tables at all. I think there's going to be
tables for a few more years (at least) and I don't think it makes sense to
fight it. After all, we're making a *business case* for standards. So simple
tables should be okay (IMNSHO) because there is often a business case for
them. Although we should encourage companies to take their designs as far
forward in the specs as possible.

On my own business site I use tables (which I really should make simpler -
bad Tara! - I slap myself on my wrist!) because I still do have a fair
number of university clients - often still using NS4.* So I use tables. But
on my blog, I don't. 'Cause I can do whatever I want on my blog. So there.

I think we're fighting for not having pixel-perfect designs that require
font tags, multiple nested tables, table hacks, proprietary code for basic
functionality, inaccessible designs etc. etc. etc. We don't have to try to
force everyone to be standards purists. And believe me, that's a big enough
task without trying to force feed the latest standards to people.

Just my 2 cents.

Regards,
Tara
-- 
Tara Cleveland
Web Design and Consulting
business --> http://www.taracleveland.com
blog --> http://www.taracleveland.com/personal