[PLUG] Re: tree to html

Jason Van Cleve jason at vancleve.com
Fri Dec 20 05:55:05 UTC 2002


Jeme A Brelin wrote:
  >
  > Tables are made for tabular data, not layout control.

That statement is true, but until CSS came around, tables were all we
had:  and for some things, they still are.  If I were to adhere to your
statement, Jeme, I would not be a very effective Web developer.
Positioning in CSS is still relatively young, so you have compatibility
problems to begin with, whereas HTML tables--while still hopelessly
flawed--are yet much more mature and stable.  And consequently there are
a number of tricks which can still only be done effectively with
tables--especially if you prefer "stretchy" sites to fixed-width
layouts, like me.

My question, though, is whether CSS is the answer to the layout problem.
    I don't think so.  I just don't see the descriptive language in CSS
to handle complex layout.  Just to get firmly off-topic, it's too easy
to become enamoured of some interface or other and to use it
inappropriately--hence the problem with HTML in general.  So the issue
with CSS, as usual, is scope.  I think we should separate "layout" from
"style"; and positioning on the page, especially "absolute" positioning,
seems to transcend mere "style".  Moreover, absolute positioning implies
overlapping rectangles, rather than concentric ones, so the whole
paradigm of HTML is warped here, if not altogether adulterated.  Don't
get me worng, absolute positioning, espressed both in pixels and
percentage of the client window dimensions, without using tables, is
something HTML always needed.  I just don't think it should be done with
CSS either.  If you have a rectangle, the inner spacing around its
contents is a "style" attribute easily enough; but to control the
placement of that rectangle (DIV tag) with its style looks right 
backward to me.  It's one way of doing it, sure, but it seems like bad 
design, in my opinionation.

But then my solution would be to cast off HTML entirely, tattered and
war-torn standard that it is.  A simpler, leaner browser interface
should be possible with XML (I know HTML now conforms to XML, but it
still sucks hopelessly) and CSS, with its own language for positioning
things sensibly and flexibly, and without all the style-based tags.
Anyone seen such a creature?

--Jason






More information about the PLUG mailing list