Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.lang.php > #17898

Re: Is it legitimate to have a continuous TABLE through multiple FORMs?

Path csiph.com!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!individual.net!not-for-mail
From Arno Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de>
Newsgroups comp.lang.php
Subject Re: Is it legitimate to have a continuous TABLE through multiple FORMs?
Date Fri, 26 Apr 2019 11:14:42 +0200
Lines 24
Message-ID <gig0g2FbnrdU1@mid.individual.net> (permalink)
References <f00fdd04-e13e-4aa8-98a6-43b8cdbbd996@googlegroups.com> <gid3upFn22bU1@mid.individual.net> <q9rq6e$rf6$2@gioia.aioe.org> <gidbbdFoj8aU1@mid.individual.net> <q9s0vd$1og2$1@gioia.aioe.org> <fohwE.105820$nx7.43783@fx28.iad> <q9ugvq$dbp$1@gioia.aioe.org>
Mime-Version 1.0
Content-Type text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding 7bit
X-Trace individual.net I8iYfiVx7cHdg9ynQ256Kg6r9tU3bV7ilQlea+ZmqRHVWtApCX
Cancel-Lock sha1:A8ozFIwJwhzCss/AgMDrEK7QR0Q=
In-Reply-To <q9ugvq$dbp$1@gioia.aioe.org>
Content-Language en-US
Xref csiph.com comp.lang.php:17898

Show key headers only | View raw

On 26.04.19 10:53, R.Wieser wrote:

> Richard,
[...]
>> My first guess is that the table is being used to create page
>> structure, which was a common technique in years past, but
>> be declared obsolete.
> 
> I don't care much for stuff being called "obsolete".   It most always 
> translates to "I don't like it anymore (and have found a new toy to play 
> with)".    The fact that it can be /declared/ obsolete (as opposed to 
> technically /becoming/ it) pretty much says it all.  :-(

The problem is, browsers *must* support most obselete code as well,
otherwise many older websites wouldn't work at all.

However this does not change the fact, that some techniques *are*
obsolete, because there *are* better ways which got introduced by HTML5,
as for example semantic elements and by CSS as for example (flex-)grids.


-- 
Arno Welzel
https://arnowelzel.de

Back to comp.lang.php | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

Is it legitimate to have a continuous TABLE through multiple FORMs? Dan Campbell <dcwhatthe@gmail.com> - 2019-04-24 07:30 -0700
  Re: Is it legitimate to have a continuous TABLE through multiple FORMs? Arno Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de> - 2019-04-25 08:55 +0200
    Re: Is it legitimate to have a continuous TABLE through multiple FORMs? "R.Wieser" <address@not.available> - 2019-04-25 10:12 +0200
      Re: Is it legitimate to have a continuous TABLE through multiple FORMs? Arno Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de> - 2019-04-25 11:01 +0200
        Re: Is it legitimate to have a continuous TABLE through multiple FORMs? "R.Wieser" <address@not.available> - 2019-04-25 12:08 +0200
          Re: Is it legitimate to have a continuous TABLE through multiple FORMs? Arno Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de> - 2019-04-25 13:59 +0200
            Re: Is it legitimate to have a continuous TABLE through multiple FORMs? "R.Wieser" <address@not.available> - 2019-04-25 16:13 +0200
              Re: Is it legitimate to have a continuous TABLE through multiple FORMs? Arno Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de> - 2019-04-25 16:56 +0200
          Re: Is it legitimate to have a continuous TABLE through multiple FORMs? Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2019-04-25 08:05 -0400
            Re: Is it legitimate to have a continuous TABLE through multiple FORMs? "R.Wieser" <address@not.available> - 2019-04-26 10:53 +0200
              Re: Is it legitimate to have a continuous TABLE through multiple FORMs? Arno Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de> - 2019-04-26 11:14 +0200
                Re: Is it legitimate to have a continuous TABLE through multiple FORMs? "R.Wieser" <address@not.available> - 2019-04-26 11:59 +0200
                Re: Is it legitimate to have a continuous TABLE through multiple FORMs? Arno Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de> - 2019-04-26 12:08 +0200
            Re: Is it legitimate to have a continuous TABLE through multiple FORMs? Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2019-05-29 19:20 +0200
  Re: Is it legitimate to have a continuous TABLE through multiple FORMs? "R.Wieser" <address@not.available> - 2019-04-25 09:49 +0200
    Re: Is it legitimate to have a continuous TABLE through multiple FORMs? Arno Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de> - 2019-04-25 11:06 +0200
      Re: Is it legitimate to have a continuous TABLE through multiple FORMs? Arno Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de> - 2019-04-25 14:09 +0200
        Re: Is it legitimate to have a continuous TABLE through multiple FORMs? Dan Campbell <dcwhatthe@gmail.com> - 2019-04-25 05:32 -0700
          Re: Is it legitimate to have a continuous TABLE through multiple FORMs? "R.Wieser" <address@not.available> - 2019-04-26 11:20 +0200
            Re: Is it legitimate to have a continuous TABLE through multiple FORMs? Arno Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de> - 2019-04-26 11:31 +0200
        Re: Is it legitimate to have a continuous TABLE through multiple FORMs? "R.Wieser" <address@not.available> - 2019-04-26 11:09 +0200
          Re: Is it legitimate to have a continuous TABLE through multiple FORMs? Arno Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de> - 2019-04-26 11:20 +0200
            Re: Is it legitimate to have a continuous TABLE through multiple FORMs? Arno Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de> - 2019-04-26 11:24 +0200
            Re: Is it legitimate to have a continuous TABLE through multiple FORMs? "R.Wieser" <address@not.available> - 2019-04-26 12:31 +0200
              Re: Is it legitimate to have a continuous TABLE through multiple FORMs? Arno Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de> - 2019-04-26 13:34 +0200
              Re: Is it legitimate to have a continuous TABLE through multiple FORMs? Arno Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de> - 2019-04-26 13:36 +0200
  Re: Is it legitimate to have a continuous TABLE through multiple FORMs? "J.O. Aho" <user@example.net> - 2019-04-25 21:36 +0200

csiph-web