XHTML 1.1 Parrallelism (Page 1 of 2)

wow sounds cool and futuristic like , btw you realise punbb is already moving that way and the next version is xhtml 1.1?

The next version is 1.0 Strict not 1.1. I'm not sure I would call XHTML 1.1 basic. I thought the core module was equivelant to 1.0 strict.

On the CSS side PunBB 1.2 uses enough id's for you to select just about any element on the board with descendant selectors so, for example, you could use #vf .tc3 {display: none} to remove the replies column on the viewforum page..

Incidentally, if it were XHTML 1.1 that would allow the use of target="_blank" for people who think it important. You just incorporate the 1.1 targets module and write you own doctype. That though is probably using a sledgehammer to crack a walnut.

One problem though with a modular approach is to work properly it would almost certainly require templating. There is a limit to what you can do with css. If you go the display:none route it means the markup still gets output, it just doesn't get displayed. The result is oversized pages with a lot of redundant markup.

have a look, http://66.98.138.31/~connorhd/pundev/vi … ?pid=38#38

well like you said in the future it should be that but i think for now most people will be happy with xtml 1.0

Sorry, I should be clearer: I was referring to the "XHTML Basic" W3C Recommendation http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml-basic/

It's a stripped-down, minimalist, version of XHTML 1.1.

C# = Evil Empire, I would do it in XUL and create an extension for Firefox.

theres too many x...ls in the world

It doesnt matter the language, thats the beauty, be it PHP-GTK, C#, Java, Assembler, you can do it all with such a system...though the forsight to do it from the beginning is normally a must.

I was looking over v1.2...and am curious why the need for tables in the front page?

<table id="idx" class="box" cellspacing="0">
<thead>
    <tr>
        <th class="tcl" id="th1"> </th>
        <th class="tc1" id="th2">Forum</th>

        <th class="tc2" id="th3">Topics</th>
        <th class="tc3" id="th4">Posts</th>
        <th class="tcr" id="th5">Last post</th>
    </tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
    <tr class="tcat">
        <th colspan="5" id="tcat2">FORUM</th>

    </tr>
    <tr >
        <td class="tcl" headers="tcat2 th1"> </td>
        <td class="tc1" headers="tcat2 th2">
            <h3><a href="viewforum.php?id=2">TEST FORUM</a></h3>
            FOR TESTS ONLY
        </td>
        <td class="tc2" headers="tcat2 th3">1</td>

        <td class="tc3" headers="tcat2 th4">6</td>
        <td class="tcr" headers="tcat2 th5"><a href="viewtopic.php?pid=38#38">Today 15:11:14</a><br />by testing</td>
    </tr>
</tbody>
</table>

...is this because div tags cant to tabular data?

True, any language will do, except evil dreaded C# :)

I was thinking of XUL because mobile devices are going to start embedding Gecko as their browser. So I imagine in the future we'll be able to interact with our forums from our cell phones or mobile pdas.

This is minimo: http://linuxdevices.com/articles/AT7396996719.html

I agree with you on all the points, Paul ...

But table with "DT" can be remplaced.

The problem of the table is if you want its layout, you have to write code : with all solutions, all is easy ...

I'm ok on the princip' of tabular data : but ... why "think" a forum like that ?

The biggest erreur of a lot of people who think xHTML, is to think div can replace table : we are ok on that. But with imagination, is it not possible to review the navigation ?

xhtml is not only the possibility to copy tables : but with layout, to create new navigation system

http://www.csszengarden.com is for me the best example of my vision of xhtml.

Actually I think it's awful.

1. How do you associate headers with data cells so they can be understood by screen reading devices. Basically it would fail most accessibility standards. You can see this if you view it with stylesheets turned off.

2. It's fixed width. I am willing to bet it would be a right mess if it were fluid width.

3. It's not semantically correct. Semantic markup is far more important than getting rid of tables.

4. There is no advantage in it. The markup for a table would be about the same and the page would take the same length of time to load.

5. It doesn't work very well in IE 5.

I've got nothing against a totally tableless bbs system but if you go that way you really have to change the design totally to do it. The only ones I have seen are actually rather more difficult to use than the traditional tabled designs.

Just to cheer you up. I know you have already seen this
http://forum.kh0d.com/

That works. It's tableless but the way index and viewforum are designed tables wouldn't be appropriate. IMHO if you want a tableless design thats the way to go.