BBC NEWS PAGES
Out of context: Reply #25
- Started
- Last post
- 53 Responses
- rafalski0
Moth, we've been here before a few times, haven't we? :)
Obviously, semantic xhtml/css gives you a dramatic improvement in terms of code structure, modularity, separation of content from design and whatnot, but it is no secret that it is flawed in its design and virtually all the flaws could've been easily avoided right there on the drawing board rather than in further revisions. I attribute some of the fuckups to xhtml consultants being coders, not designers - lets just say they were nerdy types. That's why some of very intuitive properties like "vertical-align" are not available inside box elements, except for TD's(!!!). Why not? I could never find a good answer. Same way, self-stretching equal-height layout columns (or rows) are a goner. Why? Leaving the option to add "vertical-align" to any element by specifying "display:table-cell" only proves tables were in fact useful for non-tabular stuff. But stupidly, "display:table-cell" must be wrapped in a redundant element with a "display:table" set to work. Why? Nobody knows.
Then some CSS is messed up simply because of anti-M$ political correctnes. That's why the shitty box-model we have now won over the more intuitive and functional one found in IE5.I'm not saying "give me the tables back" by any means, the non-semantic markup died for a reason. Only that they never were properly replaced with a matching set of tools. We wouldn't have this endless discussion, had CSS not been fucked up like that.
This is imo why people still haven't abandoned tables in 2008.The article I'm quoting in the post above points out that "browser issues" we've been struggling with for a few years largely come from CSS being lousely defined, not just designed, it's an angle I couldn't disagree with.