Re: Frames vs. Tables

/e wrote:

>Kyle Eller <keller(at)amsoil.com>
>>I mostly *don't* recommend using style sheets for
>>layout at this time -- those whose browsers can't see them may end up
>>seeing unreadable or exceedingly ugly pages
>>My $.02.
>
>
>1. Recommendation and $.02 statement/contribution are quite contradictory.
>Recommendations are normally based on knowledge and experience. Anybody can
>afford $.02

Anybody, including someone with knowledge and experience, can offer $.02.
This isn't a contradication. Offering "$.02 worth" is a way of indicating a
message is merely a contribution to the discussion, not something posed as
a *final, authoritative answer*. I stand by what I say and have reason to
believe it correct, but I recognize the topic invites a variety of opinions
worth considering. You might consider that attitude yourself.

>2. The term "ugly" is very relative and has no place in the recommendation

If I remember correctly, I took great pains to indicate everything I said
was my opinion. You have a right to dislike my choice of words or disagree
with my opinion. I certainly feel that way about your message.

>3. "Unreadable pages" will be as unreadable without CSS
>4. "Unreadable or exceedingly ugly pages" are not caused by CSS but by
>author's poor knowledge of html/css

I disagree. Creating a drop shadow effect, for instance, might require
putting the same words twice in the HTML. A browser without CSS capability
trying to render this page will clearly not render what was intended. The
page will be less readable. Also, someone using absolute positioning in CSS
could conceivably have sections for CSS placement in many possible
locations in the HTML document. Again, this would affect how the document
is rendered in CSS vs. non-CSS browsers, possibly leaving the
non-CSS-rendered page less readable. Is "unreadable" too strong? Maybe, but
certainly not outside the realm of possibility. Could the HTML be written
to minimize these problems? Certainly, but I'm not convinced they can be
avoided entirely. I stand by my opinion that many pages will suffer from
these problems and my recommendation that CSS placement be avoided until
more people use CSS-compatible browsers and the CSS implementation in those
browsers is better.

BTW, I'm open to correction on these points, but they are, to the best of
my knowledge, correct. And it's not just *my* opinion, since I can cite at
least one very reputable source that agrees with me.

>5. Theory in hwg-theory stands for theoretical as opposed to practical
>aspect of HTML incl. CSS based on existing and not imaginary facts/data

The person asked a practical question, and I answered it in kind. If my
answer to this question would have been more appropriate in e-mail or
hwg-html, I apologize to the list. However, your hostile tone and manner
are, in my opinion, far more inappropriate and distracting for this list.

I posted in an attempt to be helpful. Unless/until I'm given contradictory
information, I'll stand by what I offered in the first place. If I am shown
to be incorrect, it will have been an honest mistake made for the right
reasons and I'll correct it, but nothing I said was worthy of a flame.

Kyle Eller
keller(at)amsoil.com

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