Trevor said:
The arguments presented then and now are very weak, so weak they would
not even stand up to a basic academic analysis. Anything like this
presented academically would be failed almost instantly.
People just blandly state views with almost no basis or reason at all,
like saying - I like apples but not oranges.
Basics of an argument:
- Premise - your underlying statement
- Reasoning based on premise
- Examples supporting reasoning
- Advantages and Disadvantages, eg development costs, future
maintaince costs,
scope, learning curves, life expectancy, universal acceptance, etc...
- Conclusion
This is very different to just saying:
"Trust me, tables are dead"
"Tables should be only for tabular data"
etc
Such arguments are very weak and have almost convincing power at all.
They are forgotten or ignored in a New York Minute, for one simple
reason - they have no substance to them.
Is that clearer?
It becomes clear, Trevor, that you are way out of line. First of all,
this is Usenet, not a University. People don't owe you anything, most
certainly not academic analysis at your convenience. You have asked a
question, you have gotten direct and fitting replies to your question. I
don't know about the arguments _then_, but I have read the thread _now_,
and it should be pointed out that _nothing_ in your initial post
indicated that you were looking for any type of discussion, academic or
otherwise. If you are looking for academic discussion, pal, then go
ahead, initiate it. But judged from the way you are acting now, you
don't seem to have the dimmest idea of what "academic" discussions are
about.
In fact, lets take your original posting apart:
I read an array of comments signaling the end of TABLES, citing them
as old.
You have some nerve asking for academic analysis, when all you present
to begin with are some unsubstantiated claims. You claim to have read an
"array of comments" (where, when, written by whom?) signaling the end of
tables (how so?), citing them as "old" (what's meant by "old"? "Old" in
what way? "Old" in comparison to what?). There is practically nothing
there that could be used as a foundation for discussion, now, is there?
Can someone say what CSS code replaces something like the code below,
which I am using frequently?
That question has been answered. Especially since you just added a code
snippet to your posting without any indication of what you intend to use
it for.
Each include has a TABLE which is self contained. This means that
basically a series of modules can be written which are encapsulated
and independent.
I don't know how CSS can replace this kind of structure,
But some other people here do, and they have been very helpful in their
answers. Note again that you are _not_ soliciting any type of discussion
in your posting -- something that would be perfectly legitimate -- but
that you are merely asking questions and admit that you don't know
something. You have gotten answers. If you want to discuss the issue,
start discussing the issue. But don't expect other people to magically
read your mind so they can write their postings to entertain you with
discussions. That's un-academic.
and I would
like to know exactly what people are talking about when they say
TABLES are old hat.
People have told you. Several times. If you still haven't understood,
how do you intend to follow an actual "academic" discussion? They are
talking about the fact that tables are to be used for structuring data
and that for layouting purposes, CSS is to be preferred.
Now, _why_ CSS should be the preferred over tables for layout is
certainly something that's open to discussion -- in fact, it has been
discussed many times in various groups already, and undoubtedly it will
be discussed again -- but it's a totally different question from your
original one, and once again: nothing in your posting even remotely
hinted at the fact that you were looking for analysis of such things as
"advantages and disadvantages" or "future maintaince[sic!] costs".
These would be subjects for legitimate questions, no doubt about it, but
how dare you call for "academic discussion" and make wide sweeping
statements as "the arguments resented then and now are very weak, so
weak they would not even stand up to a basic academic analysis", when
you are obviously lacking the most basic essentials for such a
discussion, such as asking the right questions and distinguishing an
"argument" from a "reply" from a "fact" and from an "opinion".
