Al Sparber wrote: >From: "Alex Robinson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > >>2. Really, Al. In what way, is a total separation of presentation >>and display and content code, like spacer gifs? And in what way is >>the faux columns technique less like spacers? >> >> > >Because the same end result could be accomlished by using a very large >spacer :-) >
But isn't the point of standards-based design that you use better "means" to get the same "end"? The web user sees the same thing, but behind the scenes you're doing things in a much more efficient way? To make Layout A, I could either use nested tables and spacer gifs, which munges together content and presentation in a generally bad way, for oft-repeated reasons I don't need to get into. Or, I could make Layout A look exactly the same using semantic markup and creative CSS. Same end, but the means to get there are much cleaner, maintainable, accessible, etc. So just because the same end result is produced does not mean the means to get there should be lumped together. I'm not advocating Alex's method specifically, but I do think that equating it to spacer gif layout is misleading from a theoretical standpoint. The means *do* matter. Zoe -- Zoe M. Gillenwater Design Services Manager UNC Highway Safety Research Center http://www.hsrc.unc.edu ______________________________________________________________________ css-discuss [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.css-discuss.org/mailman/listinfo/css-d List wiki/FAQ -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/ Supported by evolt.org -- http://www.evolt.org/help_support_evolt/
