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.

______

+1 on that.  There is no way that we can preach xhtml strict as the only
choice.  We have to be realistic.  We are making a case for Web
Standards i.e. working towards the standards set down by the W3C.  An
xhtml page can still be written to standards and still validate with
nested tables and spacer gifs.

> 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.

Again, +1 here

We could/will be laughed out of the building if we start demanding that
large corporations work only to tableless pure css standards.
Businesses rely on their site's not only for marketing.  For example
insurance companies have online quoting that generates them income.  If,
all of a sudden, their sites become inaccessible to people without the
latest browsers, they will start to lose trade.  Don't get me wrong, we
need to preach standards compliance until we're blue in the face and
carry on persuading people to upgrade their browsers, but going full on
hardcore will probably not do us any favours.

> 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.

Yep - I've just submitted a 31 page report (including WAI assessment) on
our intranet and the importance of standards to one of my company's
departments.  I know that I'm going to have to really hassle them to not
"lose" it.


Francis