<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:creativeCommons="http://backend.userland.com/creativeCommonsRssModule"	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: HTML, CSS and tables</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.thetlog.net/2006/03/29/html-css-and-tables/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.thetlog.net/2006/03/29/html-css-and-tables/</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sun, 29 Nov 2009 10:04:44 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.6</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Tiago Cogumbreiro</title>
		<link>http://www.thetlog.net/2006/03/29/html-css-and-tables/#comment-1034</link>
		<dc:creator>Tiago Cogumbreiro</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 30 Mar 2006 21:31:01 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thetlog.net/2006/03/29/html-css-and-tables/#comment-1034</guid>
		<description>Have you looked at www.pai.pt? Beware viewing source it will burn your eyes!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Have you looked at <a href="http://www.pai.pt?" rel="nofollow">http://www.pai.pt?</a> Beware viewing source it will burn your eyes!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: João Craveiro</title>
		<link>http://www.thetlog.net/2006/03/29/html-css-and-tables/#comment-1033</link>
		<dc:creator>João Craveiro</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 29 Mar 2006 21:56:35 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thetlog.net/2006/03/29/html-css-and-tables/#comment-1033</guid>
		<description>&quot;I believe I’ve even seen a web tool which analysed pages, and complained about any &lt;table&gt; it found&quot;

I remember of something involving a CSS stylesheet that simply would say:

&lt;code&gt;table { display: none; }&lt;/code&gt;

which, besides being a rather stubborn attempt at boycotting pages with table-based layouts, is a rather stupid one, on the grounds that it also hides legititimately employed tables. An equaly stubborn but less stupid rule would be one of:

&lt;code&gt;body &gt; table { display: none; }&lt;/code&gt;
/* or */
&lt;code&gt;body &gt; table:first-child { display:none; }&lt;/code&gt;

-----

@João Pereira:

Problem with tables is: because of their supposed meaning/purpose, when read on a screenreader, each table is preceded by some informaiton about it --- namely, number of rows and columns. On the other hand, that&#039;s a dray when the table isn&#039;t used with any (logical) meaning at all, but only for presentation purposes (even more so with nested tables, with empty cells, empty rows, and spacer GIFs with super useful ALT attribute values like &quot;*&quot; --- this is a specialty of the portuguese public administration webshites). This is corroborated by a blind coleague of mine.

Furthermore, using tables for layout breaks the separation between content and presentation --- you are forcing, inside the content (HTML), that the presentation should be in the form of a grid, when that is something up to the presentation (CSS).

One thing that helps to the falacy is using the term &quot;table&quot; to refer to the table-like positioning of visual elements --- which leads, in the minds of the unaware, to a direct mapping to the HTML &lt;table&gt; element; &quot;grid&quot; is a way much more appropriate term.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&#8220;I believe I’ve even seen a web tool which analysed pages, and complained about any &lt;table&gt; it found&#8221;</p>
<p>I remember of something involving a CSS stylesheet that simply would say:</p>
<p><code>table { display: none; }</code></p>
<p>which, besides being a rather stubborn attempt at boycotting pages with table-based layouts, is a rather stupid one, on the grounds that it also hides legititimately employed tables. An equaly stubborn but less stupid rule would be one of:</p>
<p><code>body &gt; table { display: none; }</code><br />
/* or */<br />
<code>body &gt; table:first-child { display:none; }</code></p>
<p>&#8212;&#8211;</p>
<p>@João Pereira:</p>
<p>Problem with tables is: because of their supposed meaning/purpose, when read on a screenreader, each table is preceded by some informaiton about it &#8212; namely, number of rows and columns. On the other hand, that&#8217;s a dray when the table isn&#8217;t used with any (logical) meaning at all, but only for presentation purposes (even more so with nested tables, with empty cells, empty rows, and spacer GIFs with super useful ALT attribute values like &#8220;*&#8221; &#8212; this is a specialty of the portuguese public administration webshites). This is corroborated by a blind coleague of mine.</p>
<p>Furthermore, using tables for layout breaks the separation between content and presentation &#8212; you are forcing, inside the content (HTML), that the presentation should be in the form of a grid, when that is something up to the presentation (CSS).</p>
<p>One thing that helps to the falacy is using the term &#8220;table&#8221; to refer to the table-like positioning of visual elements &#8212; which leads, in the minds of the unaware, to a direct mapping to the HTML &lt;table&gt; element; &#8220;grid&#8221; is a way much more appropriate term.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Pedro Timóteo</title>
		<link>http://www.thetlog.net/2006/03/29/html-css-and-tables/#comment-1023</link>
		<dc:creator>Pedro Timóteo</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 29 Mar 2006 15:18:49 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thetlog.net/2006/03/29/html-css-and-tables/#comment-1023</guid>
		<description>Mário: you&#039;re right. Unfortunately.

João: you misunderstood me, this is &lt;i&gt;not&lt;/i&gt; an &quot;anti-tables&quot; post, like &quot;don&#039;t use tables, use CSS&quot;. In fact, it&#039;s much the opposite: my point is that there &lt;b&gt;&lt;i&gt;is&lt;/i&gt;&lt;/b&gt; a proper use for tables, which is... to show tables.

It seems we went from &quot;use tables for everything&quot; to &quot;using tables is a &lt;i&gt;sin&lt;/i&gt;&quot;, while the problem wasn&#039;t with using tables per se, but with using the wrong tool for the job.
</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Mário: you&#8217;re right. Unfortunately.</p>
<p>João: you misunderstood me, this is <i>not</i> an &#8220;anti-tables&#8221; post, like &#8220;don&#8217;t use tables, use CSS&#8221;. In fact, it&#8217;s much the opposite: my point is that there <b><i>is</i></b> a proper use for tables, which is&#8230; to show tables.</p>
<p>It seems we went from &#8220;use tables for everything&#8221; to &#8220;using tables is a <i>sin</i>&#8220;, while the problem wasn&#8217;t with using tables per se, but with using the wrong tool for the job.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: João Pedro Pereira</title>
		<link>http://www.thetlog.net/2006/03/29/html-css-and-tables/#comment-1022</link>
		<dc:creator>João Pedro Pereira</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 29 Mar 2006 13:59:03 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thetlog.net/2006/03/29/html-css-and-tables/#comment-1022</guid>
		<description>Tables are not THAT bad...

First, I haven&#039;t read a single argument on your post about why we shouldn&#039;t be using tables… In fact, “It’s wrong to use table for positioning stuff on a page, for several reasons”: slow rendering, accessibility issues, less control over the global layout...

However, properly coded tables can render pretty quickly and, frankly, I don’t believe table rendering time is actually a problem in these broadband days. Nested tables can be a pain, however…

With proper HTML, you can also build a table layout that is still accessible to browsers for people with disabilities.

And (increasingly less important, I admit) tables do render properly in old generation browsers…</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Tables are not THAT bad&#8230;</p>
<p>First, I haven&#8217;t read a single argument on your post about why we shouldn&#8217;t be using tables… In fact, “It’s wrong to use table for positioning stuff on a page, for several reasons”: slow rendering, accessibility issues, less control over the global layout&#8230;</p>
<p>However, properly coded tables can render pretty quickly and, frankly, I don’t believe table rendering time is actually a problem in these broadband days. Nested tables can be a pain, however…</p>
<p>With proper HTML, you can also build a table layout that is still accessible to browsers for people with disabilities.</p>
<p>And (increasingly less important, I admit) tables do render properly in old generation browsers…</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Mário Lopes</title>
		<link>http://www.thetlog.net/2006/03/29/html-css-and-tables/#comment-1019</link>
		<dc:creator>Mário Lopes</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 29 Mar 2006 09:21:45 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thetlog.net/2006/03/29/html-css-and-tables/#comment-1019</guid>
		<description>The times &quot;&lt;em&gt;web designers used HTML s for positioning text on pages&lt;/em&gt;&quot; are not over yet. Far from it if you look closely. Unfortunately.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The times &#8220;<em>web designers used HTML s for positioning text on pages</em>&#8221; are not over yet. Far from it if you look closely. Unfortunately.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
