On Wed, 2005-09-07 at 19:01 +0800, Bert Doorn wrote: > > 3. How recently had they been updated? > > Why would that be in any way relevant? > > If a site is 3-5 years old, do you expect it to be written in the "new way"?
I'm just going to pick on this point, because it's relatively open to attack and I've got enough to write about it alone, anyway. What exactly is the "new way"? Validation is nothing new. The specs have been around for quite some time --- certainly for longer than 5 years. This is 2005: if it were 1998, tag soup with table-based layout would be normal (hence vaguely "acceptable"), but it's not. And you recognise that. So, clearly, the "new way" is better. But what's the new way? Tables that validate? Internet Explorer 4 introduced some degree of CSS support that was somewhere near usable (though probably not for pure semantic layout), and that was back in 1997. We recognise semantics. We recognise that tags are created with meaning. We recognise hacks are just that: hacks. Web standards (recommendations) exist to encourage a semantic web, not to compromise to now-elapsed practises. Accusations of "divititis" and similar use of the class attribute are in some senses perfectly invalid: neither of these tags carries any implicit semantic weight. Simply from a parsing perspective, this makes them vastly superior. Tables are inherently resistant to linearisation (though appropriate markup can make this possible), and present challenges to the longevity of information thus marked, if it does not fit the purpose exactly. This is a regularly heard argument for the semantic web: it will be around, it will be able to be parsed, understood, in fifteen, twenty years time. More, even. Table-based layout is _irrational_ for visual modelling, _especially_ when we have at our disposal browsers that do a decent job of separation of content, presentation and behaviour. Even IE. We enjoy whining about lack of browser support for standards, but the reality is the biggest changes still to come aren't in the realm of presentation, but in that of behaviour, as developers realise the potential of the web for applications, and vendors enhance their clients to meet these new demands. Style, I believe, will follow the requirements this establishes. The CSS specifications are relatively mature. The building blocks are there. We can build nigh on any table-based layout with what resources are afforded us by the W3C, and more. _This_ is the "new way". Think about web applications with table-based layout. You _can_ do AJAX, but it's harder to grab an individual cell from a table and make it play how you want it to. This is but one example of the many things we will see emerge in the future, further relegating tables for layout purposes to irrelevance. There is a need for semantic markup now more than ever. Rich applications, arguably the future of the web, depend upon it. Data longevity depends upon it. This "new way", ironically, is not new at all. It's actually a reversion to the state of HTML pre- vendor-specific enhancements of the 1990's browser wars. HTML, as with SGML (and now XML) inherently bears a requirement of solid, semantic formation. This doesn't just mean "well formed" markup, either: it extends to appropriate use of tags. If you still believe this semantic paradigm is something new, take a look at this article written in 1997. Yes, 1997. http://www.xml.com/pub/a/w3j/s1.people.html As developers who understand the importance of standards, we are well and truly out of excuses. There are exceptions to every rule, but these are becoming increasingly sparse: perhaps the only valid (haha) excuse remaining is that of a target audience consisting largely of pre-version 5 user agents. Kind Regards, Joshua Street base10solutions Website: http://www.base10solutions.com.au/ Phone: (02) 9898-0060 Fax: (02) 8572-6021 Mobile: 0425 808 469 Multimedia Development Agency ________________________________________________________________________ E-mails and any attachments sent from base10solutions are to be regarded as confidential. Please do not distribute or publish any of the contents of this e-mail without the sender’s consent. If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender by replying to the e-mail, and then delete the message without making copies or using it in any way. Although base10solutions takes precautions to ensure that e-mail sent from our accounts are free of viruses, we encourage recipients to undertake their own virus scan on each e-mail before opening, as base10solutions accepts no responsibility for loss or damage caused by the contents of this e-mail. ________________________________________________________________________ ****************************************************** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list & getting help ******************************************************
