Megan — Mon, 15 Jan 2007 14:26:15 +0000

Megan;213529 wrote: Of course, tables will always be necessary for tabular data. That will never go away. And that's one of the big misconceptions in the tables vs. CSS debate - people sometimes have an innate understanding of the difference between layout tables and data tables.

On the other hand, there is a new element on this list called datagrid, which looks like it could replace (eventually, although I don't think that's what they are intending with that). The datagrid "represents an interactive representation of tree, list, or tabular data." So right now it's only for interactive tables (weird). The table is still included in the list, but I could see it being depreciated eventually if this datagrid element is meant to replace it. The problems with are really the same as the problems with - lots of mis-use, over-use, and misunderstandings over it's proper purpose. So it could be a good idea to eventually replace it with something else.

One element on the list that I don't agree with is the tag for marking up conversations. in the HTML 4.0 spec, the definition list description says that you can use that for marking up dialog (and therefore any list with matched pairs). I think that this is opening a can of worms. Once you've got dialog, why not have something for a FAQ (for example). It is still using the

and

elements from definition lists too.

While researching the datagrid element I came across this post about the working draft, which was an early version of the other one we looked at. He mentions some other interesting elements that must have been removed from the proposed spec at some point, and some thoughts on what bit corporations (Google, MS) will do with this.

Megan — Mon, 15 Jan 2007 14:21:00 +0000

Megan;213529 wrote: Of course, tables will always be necessary for tabular data. That will never go away. And that's one of the big misconceptions in the tables vs. CSS debate - people sometimes have an innate understanding of the difference between layout tables and data tables.

On the other hand, there is a new element on this list called datagrid, which looks like it could replace (eventually). The datagrid "represents an interactive representation of tree, list, or tabular data." So right now it's only for interactive tables (weird). The table is still included in the list, but I could see it being depreciated eventually if this datagrid element is meant to replace it. The problems with are really the same as the problems with - lots of mis-use, over-use, and misunderstandings over it's proper purpose. So it could be a good idea to eventually replace it with something else.

and

elements from definition lists too.

While researching the datagrid element I came across this post about the working draft, which must be a previous version to the other one we looked at. He mentions some other interesting elements that must have been removed from the proposed spec at some point, and some thoughts on what bit corporations (Google, MS) will do with this.

Megan — Sun, 14 Jan 2007 19:08:08 +0000

Roo;213507 wrote: I think that it would be a mistake. Mainly because it's only been recently that css based layouts have *really* taken hold. Think of all of those sites that would then become non-compliant.

That's why they have versioning though. *If* the div tag were to be depreciated, it would only be under HTML 5/xHTML (? not sure which version, 2.1 or 3) - so pages developed under HTML 4 or xHTML 2 would still be compliant.

Browsers will always support older versions of the standards for the sake of backwards compatibility.

Quote: This to me says that tables (which I still use) aren't so bad as many people make them out to be. As long as tables are still is use for 'tabular data' then they at least are not depreciated.

Of course, tables will always be necessary for tabular data. That will never go away. And that's one of the big misconceptions in the tables vs. CSS debate - people sometimes have an innate understanding of the difference between layout tables and data tables.

One thing that confuses me about that list of proposed elements is that i and b are still included.

roo wrote: For examle the recent addition of an absence of background-color in all elements causing a warning. This to me is dumb! If my page is white and I an not using background colors in any elements, then why in God's name would I want to inflate the stylesheet with addiotnal lines for every element? DUMB!

Yes, I agree with that. Same with some of the accessibility validators that throw a warning on all gif images because they might be flashing animation.

Roo — Sun, 14 Jan 2007 00:38:43 +0000

I think that it would be a mistake. Mainly because it's only been recently that css based layouts have *really* taken hold. Think of all of those sites that would then become non-compliant.

Think of all the work and money that would need to go into a re-do of sites you've already done to current specs (that is if developer and client were bothered by the fact that any given site has now become non-standard)

This to me says that tables (which I still use) aren't so bad as many people make them out to be. As long as tables are still is use for 'tabular data' then they at least are not depreciated.

Some of the moves by W3C do not make any sense to me.

For examle the recent addition of an absence of background-color in all elements causing a warning. This to me is dumb! If my page is white and I an not using background colors in any elements, then why in God's name would I want to inflate the stylesheet with addiotnal lines for every element? DUMB!

I DO like the idea of header, footer, nav....that to me makes sense.

mik-crap — Sat, 13 Jan 2007 10:51:41 +0000

Thank you for finding a similar article on this Megan.

Looks like the ideas of XML/XSLT have been changing the W3C's specification ideas on the new HTML type.

Browser vendors work closely to the specification, for one it's easier than making your own, and two because it ensures that they are seen as being 'with the times' and not out just to rule the browser world.

Personally, I agree with andy, the W3C need to be given legislative powers in order to force down their standards. I know that the idea of the standard is basically a guideline system, but with how fragile the web economy is, we need some laws on development.

andy206uk — Fri, 12 Jan 2007 21:20:27 +0000

This is what I hate about HTML... the W3 aren't really in charge of the spec - they just make recommendations - ultimately, it's the browser vendors that decide what comes into use and what doesn't. We need the W3 to be more proactive and take control of the situation.