Google -- either collectively or one individual in a very powerful position -- hates CSS and XHTML.
They seem to consider web standards, separting presentation from content, or making HTML conform to the rules of XML not just a waste of time but downright offensive. Their HTML is simply appalling. They seem to pride themselves on mixing tag case and breaking as many rules as possible. There is a "study" somewhere amongst the google labs pages that talks about frequency of tag and attribute usage. It would be fairly interesting except that the author takes the opportunity to slip in a bunch of barbed opinions about the futility of attempting to use standards. Or, at least, that's my recollection of it... I may have wrong. And I may have overreacted to the sheer horror at the sight of their HTML. But I don't think so. I have formulated this impression over a number of years and through a number of incidents. I have always wondered why they would be so damn pathological about it. b Cliff Pruitt wrote: > I wouldn't say its entirely off topic. This is a CSS discussion list > & there is definitely a discussion about CSS in the nature of the > email. I think it could be rephrased "Google (to my amazement) > doesn't use CSS for layout. If someone that big isn't using CSS, > should I think there is some valid use for tables as a layout tool?" > > I'm new to this list & don't want to give myself a bad name right out > of the gate, but I have to say I struggle with this one. There are > some problems that CSS just doesn't seem able to solve yet. Usually > (though not always) its a problem with IE and not with CSS itself, > but occasionally you just can't do something you want to do for > whatever reason. > > So to bring the language back to something more on-topic, when (if > ever), as a standards conscious designer/developer do you just get to > the point that the clients desire for a layout, and your desire for a > paycheck, becomes more important than the standards & say "forget it, > I know a table can do this" and resort to the old school way of doing > things. (I know its in their best interests to be accessible, but in > the real world sometimes they just don't care about screen readers or > international users & they just need a particular layout.) Or, as > some of you may argue, is there nothing CSS can't do? > > I'll have to state up front that I have two big things that for me > are even more evil than tables and I'd almost rather use font tags > before I resort to them: > > 1. IE hacks* (e.g. backslash hacks or use of the * selector) > 2. Quirks Mode > * Note: I don't consider IE's conditional comments to be "hacks" > > Without those two things that I just can't justify (I think they > constitute broken functionality & are just as invalid as using tables > for layout) I cant find CSS answers in IE for something like a fixed > (px) height, fixed position, footer without using tables. Do you > take a step backwards in your interface & force yourself not to use a > specific design just cause the "standards" say it can't be done? > > I've been really back & forth on the issue, but I'm in the middle of > a project that's going to need a solution for IE real soon. > > Just curious on the opinions & how you guys solve your layout problems. > > > On Jul 27, 2006, at 7:28 PM, Christian Montoya wrote: > > >>On 7/28/06, Dave Goodchild <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >>>Has anyone ever noticed that the Google home page and gmail.com >>>use tables >>>for layout, deprecated elements, frames, font tags, body >>>attributes like >>>vlink and so on and are invalid xhtml? I am shocked (late night >>>browsing >>>with FF web dev toolbar). Can anyone explain why this is the case. >>>I have >>>had four pints of San Miguel but surely I'm not that drunk...or >>>naive? >> >>We talk about this on the WSG list all the time. The answer: Google >>doesn't care. >> >>But this is off topic for this list, so here's WSG if you would like >>to talk about it more: http://webstandardsgroup.org/ >> >>-- >>-- >>Christian Montoya >>christianmontoya.com ... portfolio.christianmontoya.com >>______________________________________________________________________ >>css-discuss [EMAIL PROTECTED] >>http://www.css-discuss.org/mailman/listinfo/css-d >>IE7b2 testing hub -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/?page=IE7 >>List wiki/FAQ -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/ >>Supported by evolt.org -- http://www.evolt.org/help_support_evolt/ > > > > ______________________________________________________________________ > css-discuss [EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://www.css-discuss.org/mailman/listinfo/css-d > IE7b2 testing hub -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/?page=IE7 > List wiki/FAQ -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/ > Supported by evolt.org -- http://www.evolt.org/help_support_evolt/ ______________________________________________________________________ css-discuss [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.css-discuss.org/mailman/listinfo/css-d IE7b2 testing hub -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/?page=IE7 List wiki/FAQ -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/ Supported by evolt.org -- http://www.evolt.org/help_support_evolt/
