HomeProductsSupportDevONDownloadsStore decloak logo
top css tables curly brace corner programming links announcements
Cart cart | sign out  
css versus tables
 css vs tables: round I. 
    1. benefits to css
    2. is full css faster
    3. Return on
    4. Long Run
    5. w3c standards
are useless
    6. structure
and content
 css vs tables round II. 
    7. point:
        tables are for
       tabular data...

     counter point:
       yes, but tables
       make up

    8. Hey Stupid
    9. Bandwidth Savings
    10. accessibility and
     $4000 wheelchair
    11. Spend Time
    12. Captured
CSS Flagship
    13. Selling your
    14. May work well
    15. Standards
Merry Go Round
    16. Extremists
    What about W3C Standards and all that other stuff?
    (originaly written in 2004, but mainly still up-to-date and true.)
  1. W3C standards are totally useless because (a) not everyone (or company) agrees with some committee who sits around telling everyone what to do and (b) the core technologies keep changing anyway.

    Which would you rather?
    1. Getting your website to work across a majority of browsers right now, this minute.

    2.     OR

    3. Be standards compliant and have parts (or all) of your website work for this browser but not these other browsers and hope that people will eventually upgrade to the latest browser while knowing all that extra time (like double) you spent on making a standards compliant website will be shot out of the window when the next new browser forces the standards to change anyway.

    If your choice is #1, then you realize the importance of "Getting it to work, right now" is more important than "hoping it will work later" and that standards committees are more about "talking about things" than "doing things".
    Through out history, innovation destroys the status quo.
    e.g. so called standards, or W3C's "recommendations".

    Lots of so called experts, authors, and gurus say that tables, when it was first created, was never meant for layout. However, using some simple and innovative thinking, tables and nested tables can do everything that has been asked for in web page design and layout. And guess what? tables work every time and in every browser. Can CSS-P say that, especially when it was supposed to replace tables? Nope, at least not yet or anytime time soon because every browser,even the new "standards compliant" ones still have those little quirks that again need to fixed by a css hack.

    Wait a second, something (i.e. tables) that wasn't designed for layout still works, but something (i.e. css) that was supposed to designed for layout still doesn't. Ah, the irony!

    Moreover, what good are standards when browsers change so fast by adding new features every month? and innovations every few months? Or, the needs and demands of the users change with the latest killer app?

    Ever heard of FIREFOX (and now in 2011, Chrome)? That's a new browser that came out of nowhere. Could another browser do the the same as well? Sure can, just like Firefox did and so will its incompatibilities with websites. Could perhaps Opera find some other source of revenue and thus make it's browser free? Sure can. No one knows what the future holds so how can anyone predict that this version of CSS will be on the browsers that's everyone is using?

    Furthermore, any committee, such as W3C, can slap a label on a document and call it a "standard".

    Standards are NOT the same as "compliance" or "conformance". You should ask how many people have already "conformed" to a certain spec and what's the chance that others will conform to a certain spec in the future and how long will it take IF they decide to comply?

    How long has web standards been around 5, 10, 15 years?
    How long has Yahoo been around? 15+ years
    And are they standards compliant?

    Let's see below who is standards compliant after 10 or more years of these so-called standards?

    The following is a list of sites that are NOT W3C compliant as checked by the W3C standards validator.

    Yahoo.com = INVALID or Fatal Error,
    Apple.com = INVALID or Fatal Error,
    Amazon.com = INVALID or Fatal Error,
    Google.com = INVALID or Fatal Error,
    IBM.com = INVALID or Fatal Error,
    SUN.com = INVALID or Fatal Error,

    NEWS.com.com = INVALID or Fatal Error,
    ( Update, this site seems compliant.....now let's see the R.O.I.)
    (2nd Update, nope, not valid 900+ errors)

    MapQuest.com = INVALID or Fatal Error,
    USAToday.com = INVALID or Fatal Error or no DOCTYPE specified,
    MSNBC.com = can't even get a validation response
    nytimes.com = can't even get a validation response
    NetworkSolutions.com = INVALID or Fatal Error or no DOCTYPE specified,
    AOL.com = can't even get a validation response
    ESPN.go.com = INVALID or Fatal Error or no DOCTYPE specified,
    msdn.Microsoft.com = INVALID or Fatal Error or no DOCTYPE specified,
    microsoft.com * Validates but use TABLES!!!!
    Macromedia.com = INVALID or Fatal Error or no DOCTYPE specified,

    The list goes on and on.
    You can see for yourself here at the W3C validation Service

  2. What happens if Microsoft introduces a few new features to IE 7 that Mozilla doesn't have OR won't support OR that W3C won't call a standard?

    Microsoft did that before and they will specifically go out of their way to do that again and again to make sure their browser is NOT 100% standard-give-away-my-secret-sauce to the open source world.

    Microsoft will NEVER make their browser 100% W3C compliant as they always keep adding new features. In fact, all of their products are not 100% standards compliant because they will always have something to add to the latest product.

    And it's the same for Apple's browser, Safari. Steve Jobs understands business. Do you see all parts of their Apple computer being made by 3rd party like you do the PC. NO!! And guess what? you are going to see the same for their Safari browser with regards to non-compliance.

    So you CSS purists can kiss Apple's Safari browser goodbye to your list of compatible browsers as long as Steve Jobs is CEO of Apple. And you definitely can say "hasta la vista" to IE 7 as long as Mr. Bill and Mr. Ballmer are running the show.

    Is AOL's browser compatible with other browsers? NO, NO, NO.

    That's competition in a capitalist economy and you better get used to it.

    Here are some website that list the current state of web standards.
    As you can see, standards are NOT going to happen if you have to have a website that tracks "CHANGES" to those "STANDARDS".
    O X Y M O R O N.

    Index DOT Html - Blooberry
    Comprehensive history of Browsers, Html, CSS
    and their compatibilities

    Rich in Style
    List of bugs on CSS across browsers
    (as you can see, standards never seem to happen in the real world)

  4. Macromedia Dreamweaver MX 2004 adds Cross Browser Validation Tools
    As you can see Dreamweaver MX 2004 is adding support to validate across browsers. Therefore, why do we need cross-browser validation if there is going to be standards anyway? Aren't all browsers supposed to get together, hold hands, and get married to each other and live happily ever after?

    Thus, standards are not going to happen anytime soon if one looks at Macromedia's actions in developing cross-browser validation support in MX 2004.

  5. Opera study: only 4.13% of the web is standards-compliant
    The Web is fragmented, complex and always evolving.
    By Ryan Paul - Ars Techna - October 15, 2008

    Agreeing on standards is like McDonald's and Burger King agreeing to have the same type of french fry recipe. Where is the secret sauce that makes you want to go their restaurant? And where is the reason why I should use one browser over another? If all browsers are going to be the same, why should anyone make or even support another browser in the first place?

flush lines that auto stretch vertically and horizontally
terms of use | privacy policy
copyright © 2003 - decloak, inc. all rights reserved