Re: Table alignment problem

At 02:36 AM 3/1/01 , Ken Lanxner wrote:
>On 2/28/01 at 11:07 PM, Captain F.M. O'Lary <ctfuzzy(at)canopy.net> wrote:
>
>> I'm not slamming recommendations. I'm relaying personal and
>> professional experience. I know that 3.2 is THE most supported
>> standard in the HTML today.
>
>OK. That makes sense. I accept your argument, although I don't agree
>with the basic premise that 3.2 is still the most supported. But I had
>assumed you were opposed to anything later than 3.2 on some purist
>ground that I could never understand. If you truly believe that only 3.2
>is universally supported then I suppose it makes sense to continue to
>put your faith in it.


Indeed I do believe that intoto 3.2 is the most widely supported dtd at
this time. Granted, I seiously doubt you will get a lot of <4.X browsers on
your (by design) multi-media sites, you are far more likely to see those
browsers hitting public information and academic information sites.

~But~

I for one am seeing more "third world" visitors hitting my sites, I'm have
to believe that in many parts fo the world they are just *beginning* the
(approximately) same type of "digital revolution" we have seen in the more
"modernized and civilized" countries over the last few years.

My line of thinking runs that if I can design feature rich sites that WILL
accomodate "everyone" I should.

Now, please, for the record remember, I DO NOT leave out all the "cool
stuff" the 4.x dtd's allow, I use 3.2 and script the "advanced functions"
using SSI (usually PERL). SO I'm NOT saying build bland borring pages.

I'm saying _ combine _ the older more stable technologies to achieve the
same net result as the 4.X dtd's while maintaining the ability to serve
that cool stuff tot he widest possible audience.

As a *very* brief example; it was recently asked; Well Fuzzy, how do you
process forms with no JavaScript?

Answer, you do it the way that works in ALL browsers, you do it server side
with PERL (or the like).

See? Different approach, more universal solution - same result.



>> 
>> If your demographics support the decision to toss the "rule book" do
>> it - HAVE A BLAST!
>
>Well, that kind of paints the argument in terms of good and evil! :-)
>Choosing to design a site that will validate to 4.01 Transitional is
>hardly tossing the rule book, Fuzzy. You may not believe that it will
>work in as many browsers, but 4.01 *is* the current rule book. (Well
>actually, XHTML is these days.) 


Well, the rule book surely does count. But if that rule book points me to a
solution I KNOW from experience is not as widely  supported ( !! YET !!)
even I am going to ignore it.

I guess that is a little hypocritical, but atleast I'm not sitting here
lieing to you.



>
>I can't wait. I'll play my fiddle while you dance.
>

Deal !! I *love* fiddle music!

:-)
Fuzzy.
______________________________________________________________
Captain F.M. O'Lary
webmaster(at)canopy.net
It's a biiiig mistake to allow any mechanical object to realize that you
are in a hurry.
------------------------------------------------------------------

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