When are deprecated HTML Tables finally gonna die?
John Latter
Has anyone any idea of how long before HTML tables finally
'disappear'?
The above is probably a naive question (so please be tolerant!) but I
was just wondering what the the 'life' of a website with tables is
gonna be if 'user agents' (if that's the right term - and whatever
they are anyway) stop recognizing them.
Leif K-Brooks
> Has anyone any idea of how long before HTML tables finally
> 'disappear'?
Hopefully never. There's nothing wrong with using tables for what they
were intended for.
Dylan Parry
> Has anyone any idea of how long before HTML tables finally
> 'disappear'?
Tables never have and never will be deprecated. The idea that tables are
suitable for use as a layout tool is what has been questioned, but the use
of tables for presenting tabular data is still very much recommended.
--
Dylan Parry
http://www.webpageworkshop.co.uk - FREE Web tutorials and references
Now playing: Delibes - Mazurka
Hywel Jenkins
says...
How else would you show tabular data?
--
Hywel
EightNineThree
"John Latter" <jor...@msn.com> wrote in message
news:3hn9mvgpl3dlovq8v...@4ax.com...
They will never die. Tables were intended for and will continue to be
needed for tabular data.
I think a better question is: "When will designers stop abusing them for
layout?"
--
Karl Core
Charles Sweeney says my sig is fine as it is.
William Tasso
> "John Latter" <jor...@msn.com> wrote in message
> news:3hn9mvgpl3dlovq8v...@4ax.com...
>> Hi,
>>
>> Has anyone any idea of how long before HTML tables finally
>> 'disappear'?
>>
> I think a better question is: "When will designers stop abusing them
> for layout?"
Around about the same time they stop using a hammer to drive in screws.
--
William Tasso - http://WilliamTasso.com
EightNineThree
"William Tasso" <n...@tbdata.com> wrote in message
news:bk30rb$o9e8r$1...@ID-139074.news.uni-berlin.de...
> EightNineThree wrote:
> > "John Latter" <jor...@msn.com> wrote in message
> > news:3hn9mvgpl3dlovq8v...@4ax.com...
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> Has anyone any idea of how long before HTML tables finally
> >> 'disappear'?
> >>
>
> > I think a better question is: "When will designers stop abusing them
> > for layout?"
>
> Around about the same time they stop using a hammer to drive in screws.
>
Mr. Tasso, isn't it a tad bit late to be up?
rf
"EightNineThree" <eightni...@REMOVEeightninethree.com> wrote in message
news:bk32n1$3r5$1...@ngspool-d02.news.aol.com...
>
> "William Tasso" <n...@tbdata.com> wrote in message
> news:bk30rb$o9e8r$1...@ID-139074.news.uni-berlin.de...
> > EightNineThree wrote:
> > > "John Latter" <jor...@msn.com> wrote in message
> > > news:3hn9mvgpl3dlovq8v...@4ax.com...
> > >> Hi,
> > >>
> > >> Has anyone any idea of how long before HTML tables finally
> > >> 'disappear'?
> > >>
> >
> > > I think a better question is: "When will designers stop abusing them
> > > for layout?"
> >
> > Around about the same time they stop using a hammer to drive in screws.
> >
>
> Mr. Tasso, isn't it a tad bit late to be up?
That block next door with the screws keeps waking him up?
Cheers
Richard.
Dylan Parry
>> Mr. Tasso, isn't it a tad bit late to be up?
>
> That block next door with the screws keeps waking him up?
It's never too late for us Brits living to EST.
William Tasso
> "William Tasso" <n...@tbdata.com> wrote in message
> news:bk30rb$o9e8r$1...@ID-139074.news.uni-berlin.de...
>> EightNineThree wrote:
>>> "John Latter" <jor...@msn.com> wrote in message
>>> news:3hn9mvgpl3dlovq8v...@4ax.com...
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>> Has anyone any idea of how long before HTML tables finally
>>>> 'disappear'?
>>>>
>>
>>> I think a better question is: "When will designers stop abusing them
>>> for layout?"
>>
>> Around about the same time they stop using a hammer to drive in
>> screws.
>>
>
> Mr. Tasso, isn't it a tad bit late to be up?
caught an early evening nap and then watched a TV prog which was fairly
disturbing.
Nico Schuyt
> Hi,
>
> Has anyone any idea of how long before HTML tables finally
> 'disappear'?
Don't worry: Never
Cheers, Nico
John Latter
wrote:
Thankyou to everyone who replied!
I'm glad that tables aren't gonna disappear but as I kept coming
across references to their being 'deprecated' I thought I would ask :)
Naturally I shall continue to use tables solely for the presentation
of tabular data!
('uncrosses fingers')
rf
> On Sun, 14 Sep 2003 22:39:00 +0100, John Latter <jor...@msn.com>
> wrote:
>
> I'm glad that tables aren't gonna disappear but as I kept coming
> across references to their being 'deprecated' I thought I would ask :)
Tables are not and never will be deprecated. Go over to the spec and have a
look.
Some of the attributes used within tables however are, in particular the
presentational ones.
Cheers
Richard.
Sid Ismail
: Hi,
:
: Has anyone any idea of how long before HTML tables finally
: 'disappear'?
:
Never ever.
: The above is probably a naive question (so please be tolerant!) but I
: was just wondering what the the 'life' of a website with tables is
: gonna be if 'user agents' (if that's the right term - and whatever
: they are anyway) stop recognizing them.
Lifespan = forever.
Long live Tables. Hallelujah!
Sid
EightNineThree
> wrote:
>
> >Hi,
> >
> >Has anyone any idea of how long before HTML tables finally
> >'disappear'?
> >
> >The above is probably a naive question (so please be tolerant!) but I
> >was just wondering what the the 'life' of a website with tables is
> >gonna be if 'user agents' (if that's the right term - and whatever
> >they are anyway) stop recognizing them.
>
> Thankyou to everyone who replied!
>
> I'm glad that tables aren't gonna disappear but as I kept coming
> across references to their being 'deprecated' I thought I would ask :)
Perhaps what you came across was that their presentational attributes are
being deprecated?
John Latter
Thanks for putting me right with consideration Richard!
John Latter
Yes Karl - I got the wrong end of the stick again! ('sigh')
Trevor
I hear this anti-table comment often, but I fail to understand it. I
assume people refer to CSS replacing tables, but CSS seems incapable
of handling nested tables presentations and the ease of writing
tables.
I copied the code from google.com showing how the world's number one
website uses tables:
START QUOTE
</head><body bgcolor=#ffffff text=#000000 link=#0000cc vlink=#551a8b
alink=#ff0000 onLoad=sf()><center><table border=0 cellspacing=0
cellpadding=0><tr><td><img src="/images/logo.gif" width=276 height=110
alt="Google"></td></tr></table><br>
<table border=0 cellspacing=0 cellpadding=0><tr><td
width=15> </td><td id=0 bgcolor=#3366cc align=center width=95
nowrap><font color=#ffffff size=-1><b>
etc
END QUOTE
From what I have seen all major sites uses tables, eg yahoo.com,
ivillage.com etc
So where's the argument against tables?
Matthias Gutfeldt
Most of the arguments are of purely religious nature (it's the "wrong"
way to do it), but there are a couple practical considerations too.
Tables-based layouts use more code than HTML+CSS layouts. Although the
HTML code's filesize is sometimes negligible compared to all the images
and other media files, cleaner HTML code with CSS layout can save quite
some bandwidth. For example, espn.com reported they expected a bandwidth
save of 2 terabytes per day:
<http://devedge.netscape.com/viewsource/2003/espn-interview/01/> (not
that they're particularly standards compliant...)
Writing HTML+CSS is faster. You just markup your content with headings,
lists, etc, without even thinking about layout. Then, if your layout
requires it, you group the content with generic containers into sections
like "advertising banner", "navigation", "content" etc. Once that is
done, you attach the styles to those elements and containers. In my
experience that's a lot faster than tweaking tables.
Clean HTML with CSS also tends to be easier to manage; since all the
layout is in one central CSS file, you can debug the design of
practically the whole site, and tweak it to work in quite an impressive
range of browsers, by changing one single file.
There are quite a few obvious drawbacks, of course. One drawback is that
you need to learn not only a new technique but also a whole new concept;
and some things that were easy with tables aren't quite as easy with
CSS. But other things (quite a few!) are much easier with CSS than
without.
Most importantly, today's browsers neither support CSS well, nor
consistently, which means that a lot of the time you save, you have to
invest into debugging the stylesheet. And obviously there's next to no
support at all in legacy browsers.
Some people think it's OK to just drop users of those browsers, but
others disagree. Then again, those who disagree are quite often the same
that use CSS to re-create tables-based layouts - and that really makes
you wonder what the argument against tables is :-).
The point about Google is of course entirely valid: They don't do it, so
why should we? On the other hand, it wouldn't be all that difficult to
recreate their "layout" with CSS - several people have done it, with
varying success.
Matthias
Isofarro
> I copied the code from google.com showing how the world's number one
> website uses tables:
I looked at the source from news.com.com - CNet - the world's biggest online
news website. And they don't misuse tables.
Heck. Even the second biggest news website in the world Wired.com isn't
using tables for layout.
Must be a reason for that.
--
Iso.
FAQs: http://html-faq.com http://alt-html.org http://allmyfaqs.com/
Recommended Hosting: http://www.affordablehost.com/
Web Design Tutorial: http://www.sitepoint.com/article/1010
nice.guy.nige
> "EightNineThree" <eightni...@REMOVEeightninethree.com> wrote in
> message news:bk32n1$3r5$1...@ngspool-d02.news.aol.com...
>> Mr. Tasso, isn't it a tad bit late to be up?
>
> That block next door with the screws keeps waking him up?
You mean a prison? ;-)
(note for non-British readers - 'screw' is uk slang for prison warder)
Cheers,
Nige
--
Nigel Moss.
Email address is not valid. ni...@nigenetDOG.org.uk. Take the dog out!
http://www.nigenet.org.uk | Boycott E$$O!! http://www.stopesso.com
"How strange the change from major to minor..."
Toby A Inkster
> And obviously there's next to no [CSS]
> support at all in legacy browsers.
>
> Some people think it's OK to just drop users of those browsers
Just hide CSS from legacy browsers. You're still supporting them, they
just see an unstyled version of the site.
--
Toby A Inkster BSc (Hons) ARCS
Contact Me - http://www.goddamn.co.uk/tobyink/?id=132
EightNineThree
"Trevor" <sa...@logicians.com> wrote in message
news:88a9861a.03091...@posting.google.com...
> "EightNineThree" <eightni...@REMOVEeightninethree.com> wrote in
message news:<bk2pvq$skr$1...@ngspool-d02.news.aol.com>...
> > "John Latter" <jor...@msn.com> wrote in message
> > news:3hn9mvgpl3dlovq8v...@4ax.com...
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > Has anyone any idea of how long before HTML tables finally
> > > 'disappear'?
> > >
> > > The above is probably a naive question (so please be tolerant!) but I
> > > was just wondering what the the 'life' of a website with tables is
> > > gonna be if 'user agents' (if that's the right term - and whatever
> > > they are anyway) stop recognizing them.
> > >
> >
> > They will never die. Tables were intended for and will continue to be
> > needed for tabular data.
> > I think a better question is: "When will designers stop abusing them for
> > layout?"
>
> I hear this anti-table comment often, but I fail to understand it. I
> assume people refer to CSS replacing tables, but CSS seems incapable
> of handling nested tables presentations and the ease of writing
> tables.
>
> I copied the code from google.com showing how the world's number one
> website uses tables:
The above logical fallacy comes to you from a guy whose site is
http://www.logicians.com
Matthias Gutfeldt
>
> Trevor wrote:
>
> > I copied the code from google.com showing how the world's number one
> > website uses tables:
>
> I looked at the source from news.com.com - CNet - the world's biggest online
> news website. And they don't misuse tables.
He, he, he - they just changed it two days ago. And of course it doesn't
validate, like espn.com. Bad example.
> Heck. Even the second biggest news website in the world Wired.com isn't
> using tables for layout.
Wired, on the other hand, does validate (apart from the occasional
glitches).
Matthias
Matthias Gutfeldt
>
> Matthias Gutfeldt wrote:
>
> > And obviously there's next to no [CSS]
> > support at all in legacy browsers.
> >
> > Some people think it's OK to just drop users of those browsers
>
> Just hide CSS from legacy browsers. You're still supporting them,
> they just see an unstyled version of the site.
In an University setting with a solid userbase for Opera 4, NN 4, IEX4,
and other antiques ? I don't think so.
Matthias
kchayka
>
> I hear this anti-table comment often, but I fail to understand it. I
> assume people refer to CSS replacing tables, but CSS seems incapable
> of handling nested tables presentations and the ease of writing
> tables.
Layout tables are only an "easy" way to design if you use a so-called
WYSIWYG editor that generates the code for you. They are a big PITA if
you hand-code. Besides, without the kludgery of layout tables, a site
is actually much easier to maintain and can reach a wider audience.
BTW, there isn't anything at either of your sites (urls gleaned from
your email address) that couldn't be done with CSS fairly easily.
Tables shouldn't be needed at all, let alone nested ones.
--
To email a reply, remove (dash)ns(dash). Mail sent to the ns
address is automatically deleted and will not be read.
Dylan Parry
> In an University setting with a solid userbase for Opera 4, NN 4, IEX4,
> and other antiques ? I don't think so.
You'd be surprised. Even out in the sticks (Bangor, Wales) the University
has upgraded all systems to IE6 and Netscape 7.
Matthias Gutfeldt
> Matthias Gutfeldt wrote:
>
>
>>In an University setting with a solid userbase for Opera 4, NN 4, IEX4,
>>and other antiques ? I don't think so.
>
>
> You'd be surprised. Even out in the sticks (Bangor, Wales) the University
> has upgraded all systems to IE6 and Netscape 7.
The "official" browser here is IE6. But every department is a small
kingdom that does pretty much what it wants, not just in IT.
Matthias
Isofarro
> Isofarro schrieb:
>>
>> Trevor wrote:
>>
>> > I copied the code from google.com showing how the world's number one
>> > website uses tables:
>>
>> I looked at the source from news.com.com - CNet - the world's biggest
>> online news website. And they don't misuse tables.
>
> He, he, he - they just changed it two days ago. And of course it doesn't
> validate, like espn.com.
Neither does google.com.
Matthias Gutfeldt
> Matthias Gutfeldt wrote:
>
>
>>Isofarro schrieb:
>>
>>>Trevor wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>I copied the code from google.com showing how the world's number one
>>>>website uses tables:
>>>
>>>I looked at the source from news.com.com - CNet - the world's biggest
>>>online news website. And they don't misuse tables.
>>
>>He, he, he - they just changed it two days ago. And of course it doesn't
>>validate, like espn.com.
>
>
> Neither does google.com.
Of course not! They're the evil bad guys with tables layout, remember?
But unlike news.com.com, they don't even claim to be using any
particular HTML version, so at least they're honest about it.
Decorating non-valid garbage with an XHTML Doctype sends entirely the
wrong message to the people in high places we're trying to convince of
the importance of standards.
Matthias
Trevor
Logicians.com is not developed much, my time is used in commercial
sites which actually make money. But my long term interests are in
logical aspects of technology. I hope to develop something in
multimedia later using 3D and control systems.
Logicians (the people) have an interesting history, many were
philosophers. I was motivated by the name after reading a book on
logicians in Ancient Greece.
Trevor
> Trevor wrote:
> >
> > I hear this anti-table comment often, but I fail to understand it. I
> > assume people refer to CSS replacing tables, but CSS seems incapable
> > of handling nested tables presentations and the ease of writing
> > tables.
>
> Layout tables are only an "easy" way to design if you use a so-called
> WYSIWYG editor that generates the code for you. They are a big PITA if
> you hand-code. Besides, without the kludgery of layout tables, a site
> is actually much easier to maintain and can reach a wider audience.
>
> BTW, there isn't anything at either of your sites (urls gleaned from
> your email address) that couldn't be done with CSS fairly easily.
> Tables shouldn't be needed at all, let alone nested ones.
The sites logicians.com etc were all developed during 1999 in my spare
time and not much since then on them. I first used the Internet in
1993 as a postgraduate, but in 1999 I started writing my own sites
after the boom started in the US.
I have worked on customer work and now my own e-commerce site at
merrows.com which is only a few weeks old.