- It seems like this confirms that XHTML+CSS is not for casual professionals or consumers anymore. Either you have to be a hardcore hobbyist or a professional who does virtually nothing else, like Zeldman. They provide pre-selected XHTML-strict templates, but they had to go to a laundry list of luminaries to get them. The days of democratic HTML have given way to gatekeepers, either electronic or human. Fortunately the electronic ones preserve some of the democracy of the original HTML concept.
- The very first entry (the announcement itself) shows that semantic code that weighs less than comparable table-based layout is, shall we say, overhyped a bit:
Hmm….seems kinda familiar…
<table id="header"> <tr id="h2"> <td id="h3"> <a href="../../" title="Blogger Knowledge"> <img src="../../images/klogo100.gif" width="422" height="100" alt="Blogger" /> </a> <font color="#CCCCCC"></font> </td> </tr> </table>
OK, I threw in the font tag just to be mean, but I think you get my point. This is NOT “putting the hacks in a central CSS file.”
Really, all I want out of the XHTML Strict+CSS2 table-free advocates is an admission that the technology is still pretty immature, that there are still really big problems in adopting it as a full-on replacement for HTML, and that in current browsers it isn’t yet possible to completely fulfil the dream that they outline–easier maintenance, lighter weight (images and code), completely semantic code, and being able to use one source (XHTML) as the structured repository for content for several devices (wireless, disabled, standard browsers) simultaneously. I just want an acknowledgement that it costs more to produce and requires compromises, and that different situations may require different compromises–even, gasp, the occasional table for layout.
Really, can it be so much worse than the above example?