tableless template?

[stingrey]

Originally Posted by vostok4

Now, I think I may tackle some internal issues with Mambo

Before u start
1. We acknowledge current mambo code is a mess in the fact there is no clear separation between the business/logic layer and the output layer.
2. We acknowledge that mambo core output is very heavily based upon the use of tables.
3. We also acknowledge that it does not meet accessibility compliance standards.

Now, 2 & 3 cant really be effectively and efficently addressed until 1 is addressed. So to that add work is being done to better separate the business layer from the output layer, through the use of patTemplates for 4.5.3:
http://forum.mamboserver.com/showthr...t=pattemplates

Once that (1) is completed than we can focus on shifting mambo away from the use of tables (2) and to meet all the necessary accessibility compliance standards (3).

Why not (2) and (3) right now. Mainly because (1) is a painfulyl large task in on its own. Also we are mindful of breaking existing site layouts, for those who upgrade.

However, with the implmentation of (1) through patTemplates, you will be able to easily change mambos core output to meet 2 & 3 yourself, without having to hack the core php code:
http://forum.mamboserver.com/showthr...7&postcount=43

[vostok4]

Ah, well, there is a reply I wasn't quite expecting!

I read through the work on getting patTemplates in there, and I must say its looking very good. I think I'll go grab a copy of the CVS and see how far things are coming, but it does look promising (plus a waste of time for me to do the same thing myself right now ).

Thanks for the pointer Stingray.

[stingrey]

Originally Posted by vostok4

Aplus a waste of time for me to do the same thing myself right now

Thats why I pointed it out.
If you hack the latest stable release now [4.5.2.3] and then upgrade to 4.5.3 (and I might be biased, but u will want to upgrade).

You wont even be able to reapply the same hacks, as so much of the existing core frontend output code has changed or moved.

[hazman]

Vostok4,

If a client says he/she wants a template made with divs and fully validated to those guy's standards then by all means that's how it shall be done.

You are not getting the point here, at least not mine.

And you are calling, the ones that don't do it your way unprofessional, indirectly but you are. How sad, but I respect your point of view.

I came across this site - http://www.decloak.com/Dev/CSSTables/CSS_Tables_01.aspx

[ElLeonBlanco]

Hazman:

Excellent website.... I couldn't agree more. The standard is what the majority uses... not what some; I wanna make it harder so I can look like the head cheese fruitcake. Also... Vostok... if you really are managing to con people out of that kind of money to convert websites... My hat is off to you. You are just the kind of people that the world needs more of. Come look at the Emperor's new clothes.

[hazman]

ElLeonBlanco, there's also a list of mayor, mayor site's that don't follow this validation and if I remember correctly Microsoft validates to their standards, but guess what - The site is loaded with...tables!!!

Yahoo! - 298 errors of this so called 'validation'.
The mighty Google - 52 of these so called errors.

The list goes on and on and on.

Most, if not all, mayor newspaper sites don't 'validate'.

[vostok4]

hazman, I'm going to say it openly and I don't care if I get flak for it. If you actively design with disregard for CSS, your work is not professional. I don't care how nice it looks, its not proper, and if you are working towards a client base that gives a damn about code and efficiency (I'm not talking 30$ websites for small local businesses to put a phone number online), then you should understand what I'm talking about.

That website is another matter altogether. It's written by someone who obviously understands in no way what the benefits of CSS are, or what it can do. I'll address it when I get to work, I am late already, but just one thing strikes me, "The standard is what the vast majority uses".

That kind of thinking promotes zero evolution of the internet. Everyone used IE, so whats the point of making Firefox display pages different (properly)? What if your so-called "standard" is WRONG fundamentally? Do we continue to not give a **** and just do things the old way because we don't want to change? Let's code improperly aaaaaand call it standard... yeah that will work.

Also, I don't con anyone out of money. I'm approached by clients. If they want my services they say they do, if not, they walk away. Whats hard to understand about that? Am I the only web developer in the world that they have no choice? Please, turn your head beyond your field of web design and look at some of the large customers that may exist out there, managed by people who consider the CSS argument.

If they are paying, they must agree with it in some sense? A pricetag like that doesn't carry a decision which has not been carried out.

hazman, mentioning the Microsoft site it just says you didn't bother to take any time to actually read any of the work contained on the sites I posted. One essay actually specifically targets Microsoft's site, but, I guess in your mind there is no alternative. Question, if the vast majority of people jumped off of a bridge, would you too?

[hazman]

vostok4,

So all of a sudden someone comes out and says something against the so called validation and says tables are not this evil thing and you just simply have this to say?

That website is another matter altogether. It's written by someone who obviously understands in no way what the benefits of CSS are, or what it can do. I'll address it when I get to work, I am late already, but just one thing strikes me, "The standard is what the vast majority uses".

But if the site talked about how 'validation' is the way to go, then you are all hearts with them. Your mind is totally shut!

How come you separate CSS from Tables? Aren't they versatile enough to use CSS?

My point is this:

This validation is made by someone, it's an invention, someone made it up and we are supposed to follow it, like little soldiers?? And if we don't, then like you said we are unprofessional, so no one will hire me because I don't believe in this 'validation'?

My experience tells me otherwise.

[ElLeonBlanco]

How can you call someone unprofessional when you do something in a different style as long as the customer is pleased and the work is done. Proffesional is giving the CLIENT what they are paying for. If I make a site on tropical birds that takes 6 million hits this month and the 3 people that were using text to speech have problems... WHAT DIFFERENCE DOES IT MAKE? They could not see the photos anyway. If I make a site geared for people that are blind .. well then I will go out of my way to make it easy to use for them. CSS is great for some things and not so hot for others. It is a lot like FLASH in that respect. Also... sites developed in CSS are quite often DRAB AND BORING. So... don't go around calling people unprofessional because they have different means to an end. Professional is all CLIENT SATISFACTION. Most of the cigar smokers in the suits woudn't know what W3C was if it hit them in the head. Nor would they care. The question is... does it look good to them? Did they pay you for it? Did they ask you to do more? If you meet those qualifications then you did a PROFESSIONAL job.

[stingrey]

Ok lets move away from this debate about the word 'unprofessional'.
You have a choice whether u wish to meet validation standards or not.
Lets talk about it terms of what advantages using Divs and css can bring.

Also Simply to state that because a standard promoted is not used by the majority now is not a valid reason not to follow it. The importance is to look at the underlying reasoning behind a standard and understand why it is being promoted.


Producing a site that is based on tables is not wrong, pre se, it does the job.


However, a more effective/advantageous way of handling the code is to base it on the use of divs and stylesheets. Firstly it generally leads to less html code lines, and tends to be rendered faster by browsers.
There is also the benefit of controlling several 'pages' of html through the use of one style sheet, leading to easier code maintenance [this is not impossible with tables, but is much harder].
It is for the same reason why managing a large site is easier using a dynamic system like Mambo, than having a fully static site.


Than there is the argument in regards to accessibility.
Tables are much harder for things like screenreaders to parse properly than divs - not impossible, but harder.
To argue that simply because a small percentage of our population (or your target audience) are impaired, should not be a reason to marginalize them further. Should we marginalize these already marginalized segment of our society even further, by not trying to help them out?
This is a social ethics question, who will protect and promote the marginalized, free market economics wont, generally social concerns are the role of Government to protect. And increasingly governments are making it a requirement for goverment and NGO's dependent on government funds, that their sites meet accessibility requirements.
I should also note that accessibility issues/standards are not the sole domain of css/divs.
But social ethocs questions should not be the sole domain of governments, but all individuals. This a chance to do a bit of beneficial social engineering by pushing for standards that help the marginalized ourselves.
After all the whoel concept of Open Source is about giving bakc and helping society as a whole.


And most probablly the `cigar smokers` wont now about these standards, thats our jobs as IT professionals.




There is nothing implicitlly `wrong` about relying heavily on using tables to create html output.

However there are distinct advantages to using CSS & Divs - especially in terms of accessibility.

It is for these very reasons, why we are taking the steps to move Mambo away from the heavy ue of tables within its core output.

[WashURick]

Originally Posted by ElLeonBlanco

If I make a site on tropical birds that takes 6 million hits this month and the 3 people that were using text to speech have problems... WHAT DIFFERENCE DOES IT MAKE? They could not see the photos anyway.

In publishing of any sort, you don't get to choose your audience. If those three people don't matter to you, then I think the entire rest of the argument that follows is completely moot.

You can target to an audience but that does not mean someone else outside of your target group won't come to your site. Is it fair or even smart business to design your page so those persons cannot browse it, while maybe they can browse the competing websites? If you're writing content only for those with 20/20 non-colorblind vision, perfect audio-sensory capabilities and a high end computer running nothing but Microsoft products, then I guess that's your prerogative. The fact that there is a way to write the site that those people, AND other people can view it just fine as well, and that you choose not to, just because you don't care about those three blind people... that is what speaks to your professionality. It is not just about how many pages you can turn out and how much money you can make for them.

And as for the "CSS-only sites are boring" argument or the "validating pages are boring" argument, check out ZenGarden. I don't think those sites are boring, and they are not only CSS-Only but also validate STRICT standards. Not to mention the simplicity with which you can change out the CSS document the site is using and it changes then entire look and feel of the page. That flexibility is the whole point of the webpage.

As I said earlier, it is not necessarily a question of who can turn out the most webpages the fastest (although I think CSS is pretty easy to employ rapidly) but a question of a professional attitude. If the entire web was designed in a "well, there aren't THAT many blind people, and what use would they have for <productname>" kind of attitude, the entire blind population would be left out of the Internet.

I guess that wouldn't matter as long as ya got paid, right?

[WashURick]

Originally Posted by stingrey

A bunch of stuff that sounds very good and makes a lot of sense...

I couldn't have said it better... in fact, I didn't say it better. I applaud the Mambo team for moving away from table-based layouts. The scope and direction of the project continues to impress. Keep up the good work.

[hazman]

Why do people keep separating tables from CSS???

Don't tables use the same Cascading Style Sheets as the DIVS tags use? If so why this separation.

Why? CSS alone, only means exactly that, no tables, no divs and try and build a site like that.

And what's so expectacular about zengarden???

[hazman]

Originally Posted by WashURick

I couldn't have said it better... in fact, I didn't say it better. I applaud the Mambo team for moving away from table-based layouts. The scope and direction of the project continues to impress. Keep up the good work.

And is this gonna make it better or actually worse. Let's not forget float here and float there and actually it doesn't float anywhere.

[WashURick]

Originally Posted by hazman

And what's so expectacular about zengarden???

I'm sorry, I didn't intend to say that zengarden is the be all and end all of websites. It is just that some people argue that a div-only (my bad on using the term css-only earlier) w3c validated webpage cannot look artistic or be pleasing on the eyes... that it must be boring. My only point was that you CAN do great things without tables.

Sorry for the confusion.

[WashURick]

Originally Posted by hazman

And is this gonna make it better or actually worse. Let's not forget float here and float there and actually it doesn't float anywhere.

Well, I doubt it's going to make it worse. If the Mambo team felt the project's quality would suffer from these changes, I doubt they would do it.

That said, they are proving at least MY argument in opposition to tables being used for layout. And that is simply that what can be done with tables can also be done without; when done without, you can make your site more accessibe to more people. So why not do it without?

[hazman]

Of course you can do great things, but you can do them with or without tables and with or without 'validation'.

To me this is just preference, I don't believe in some dudes making their own rules in the template world and expect me to follow it, I was templating way before they were around, give me a set of rules worht while following and I will, but this, is a joke.

As a matter of fact I make more money not following their rules than I do following them and money talks and you know what walks...And if you all wanna call me unprofessional, so be it.

[WashURick]

Originally Posted by hazman

To me this is just preference...

Well, if you completely ignore the accessibility arguement, you're right. Perhaps we should just leave it at that; it's merely a preference. If you want to make your site viewable and accessible by the largest majority of users, then you will standardize. If you don't care about those people who are not using IE or who are browsing the web with disabilities, then you can code whatever way you want.

Those who have never had to deal with any sort of disability seldom care about those who have, especially when the decision is weighed against money in the bank.

[hazman]

So you are saying, in order to reach the disabled I have to 'validate'?

And what accessability are you talking about here?

[vostok4]

Some interesting notes on that website...

For someone who seems so anti-CSS he still uses it quite a bit in his page. Also, take a quick look at his code, you will quickly start to see this guy has no idea how to even code proper TABLE website... <br>'s inbetween <li>'s? How cute.

Now, let me attack his article.

No. There is no "real-life" or practical benefits when you start to replace each-and-every-single <table> tag with <DIV> tags and attempt to use full CSS to display your webpages properly across popular browsers.

Hmm, well the entire point is you DON'T replace every single <table> tag with a <div> tag. Maybe he should READ about wtf he is ranting about first?

It's one thing to use a CSS style to replace the same fonts that will be used all over the place. But it's another when you take little bits and pieces of code out of the page and bury it some huge .css file and then try to figure out and try to remember where they all came from and what each piece of code did 2 months from now

Some CSS files do get big, but lets see... some interesting factors he's never thought about. Comment his code? *GASP* Split up CSS files per area so he doesn't have the trouble of not being able to read his own code?

And if it's one thing that FULL CSS isn't, it's simple as there is a considerable learning curve. And by the way, there is the actual implementation of full css, which is also complex. And FULL CSS has tons and tons of hacks and so-called work around just to get it to work right even in the latest browsers IE 6 and Netscape 7. And that's not even mentioning the Mac browser versions.

Yes, please don't mention Safari as it generates most code according to spec. "FULL CSS" wouldn't have so many hacks and "work arounds" (I can think of 2 or 3 you will use on most layouts... if thats too many, well then...) if Microsoft knew how to write a browser. CSS was in place before MS wrote IE6, and its globally viewed as a "standard", and if MS doesn't care how it renders why would they support it at all?

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?

In order to combat his point, I'm going to use another one of his points.

Windows 2000 is at 48% business users.
Windows XP is at 38% business users
And is IE 7 going to be in Windows 2000?
So far that answer is NO from news.com article on June 2, 2005
So what does this mean, lots and lots of users are going to using IE6.

So, who cares if IE7 introduces new IE7 only features? By this guys own argument it would be stupid to code them in according to the facts.

Microsoft has a hard enough time trying to get their software to work and out the door, do you honestly think they are going to sit around waiting for the W3C committee to make up their minds on the next standard or regularly consult with any Mozilla programmers to make sure their's browser works with IE?

If you would read some blogs of MS Dev's, you'd see they are working very hard on implementing FULL CSS level 2 support. That means proper rendering. Hm, again, read up on what you are writing about?

As you can see, Microsoft doesn't even make it's websites 100% cross-browser friendly, do you think Microsoft is going to make IE 7 display pages just like Mozilla does?

Let's think here, do you think Microsoft isn't making their pages cross browser friendly because they don't know how? It's not about IE7 displaying pages LIKE MOZILLA. It's about IE7 displaying pages THE RIGHT WAY.

It's also the same for Apple's browser, Safari. Steve Jobs understands business. Do you see *critical" parts of their Apple computer like the OS being made by a 3rd party company like you do with the PC computer. No! And guess what? You are going to see the same for their Safari browser with regards to non-compliance to not working with IE. Lots of websites do not work in Safari, but work in IE.

Those same sites also don't work in other W3C compliant browser. Hrmm... interesting?

So 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.

Again, this guy has not the slightest clue what he is talking about. CSS level 2 support will come proper out of the box in IE7, I'm not saying anything about level 3 as that is still being worked on, and it doesn't matter to much as of right now. "Mr. Bill" knows that his browser is losing market share not because it displays pages like Firefox, but because it doesn't and its in insecure piece of junk that had no public appealing alternatives till FF came around.

Here, as stated more than an year ago, IE 7 will NOT fully support CSS2 because Microsoft thinks that CSS2 is FLAWED....read more of the article here (insert eWeek article about IE7 here)

If you read that article, its based on speculation as the first line states "IF sources close to Microsoft are correct". You know you have a strong argument when you have to take speculation as fact

Look at the Metric system? Has that been adopted by the U.S.? Nope.

That comment almost left me speechless, then I burst out laughing. OK, The US didn't adopt the Metric system, so the Metric system is wrong. Good one.

Finally,

Money doesn't grow on trees so not everyone can afford to get the latest Windows OS. (or for that matter the latest Mac OS) And people could care less if it's CSS-P site or not as most people don't even know what CSS is anyway.

So your website had better work on the browser that THEY have right now; NOT the browser you want them to use cause they can't always afford the next OS / browser; nor do they always have the time to install the latest browser to display your latest creation or CSS hack.

That's how the real world works; which is a lot different than what some author's CSS and/or standards book you read would like it to be.

Firefox is free. Mozilla is free. Websites shouldn't be developed in a way that their STYLES are accessible to all, but the INFORMATION must be accessible to all. People with disabilities DO USE the internet, and without proper CSS/XHTML they will NOT be able to read your site.