Re: WAI Triple-A conformance critique

>Going to HTML 1.0 seems to me going 3 steps
>behind :)
>
>In fact, HTML 1.0 should be deprecated. I'm not sure at which point the use
>of this doctype wouldn't tag my pages as not valid by current standards.

I think they were saying *X*html 1.0 not html 1.0, but I maybe wrong...


Debra Myers
Total Web Works

Need a website? Check Out:
http://www.totalwebworks.com

Disclaimer: Any errors in spelling, tact, or fact are transmission errors.

All out going Mail is Virus Scanned by Norton Antivirus 2002.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Mario Figueiredo" <admin(at)marfig.com>
To: <dramoth(at)lwds.net>; "Aware" <aware-techniques(at)hwg.org>
Sent: Sunday, October 13, 2002 6:41 AM
Subject: Re: WAI Triple-A conformance critique


Hi Mark,

On Sat, 12 Oct 2002 22:24:31 +0100, Mark Leaver wrote:
>I would rather use a table structure to setup the page rather than an
>extensive use of the <DIV> tags with style classes associated with them.
>The reason for this is that you can use CSS to position everything to the
>exact place you want it rather than trying to place through the DIV tags,
>the exact location of each DIV.

I don't follow... That's what I'm doing. That is, I use CSS positioning
through the DIV tags. These carry the class which tells them where to
position themselves. Whereas by using a table structure, not only It would
be difficult to image the text flow on the code (tables have their own
structure), but also nearly impossible to place elements through CSS.

>If you don't want to use <DIV> tags or table tags, then it would be better
>to use <p> tags and try to go for a XHTML 1.0 STRICT standard rather than
>trying to stick with a HTML 4.01 trans standard doctype. At the end of the
>day it restricts your html tag limits and forces you to use a more
>structured formatting to the page.
>
>But then again, I am a pure programmer type person who would rather see
>adherence to standards than to see minor deviations from the basic
>standard.

hmm... sorry Mark. I'm really not following you :)
My pages validate at 4.01 transitional. My CSS also validates at level 2.
I'm just one step behind 4.01 Strict, which can in fact validate by just
using the style property on the image tags for border and sizes. What some
of you have been telling me is exactly to structure my code. Like avoiding
<div> when I'm placing an element more close to a H1. But that's about it
on what comes to the <div> tag. Going to HTML 1.0 seems to me going 3 steps
behind :)

In fact, HTML 1.0 should be deprecated. I'm not sure at which point the use
of this doctype wouldn't tag my pages as not valid by current standards.

>Using <DIV> tags with classes is much tidier than using a nested table
>structure to format your page. But at the end of the day you need to know
>your CSS structures inside out to achieve this.

Hmm... agreed. But that's the price to pay. Not much when one considers
that by using tables, a change in your structure would have to be
replicated throughout the whole site, while with a CSS positioning
technique, in most cases, you would only have to change the CSS file
itself.

Best Regards,
Mario Figueiredo
http://www.marfig.com  (portuguese speakers)
http://www.marfig.com/en_index.htm (english speakers)
admin(at)marfig.com

HWG: hwg-basics mailing list archives, maintained by Webmasters @ IWA