Aryeh Gregor <Simetrical+wikilist <at> gmail.com> writes:
I'm pretty sure that infoboxes can be done just
fine with divs. Not
exactly as they are now, but well enough. You can't get the exact
auto-width algorithm for the cells, but in typical infoboxes it will
be fine if you just set it to 50% or something. And even if that's
not perfect, we could use display: table for everything but IE6/7, so
only they get the slightly bad widths.
Infoboxes would do fine, navboxes not so much. Consider something like [1], how
would that work with fixed widths?
If I remember correctly, there was an effort a while ago to make navbox markup
less ugly (make it use a single table at least, instead of one table stacked
into another), and even that didn't work in more comlicated cases like navbox
subgroups.
Also, you can use visibility: collapse with collapsible tables, which looks much
nicer in certain cases (when the table cannot be set to fixed width for some
reason).
They don't have CSS equivalents that are
realistically usable inline.
For instance, to simulate the padding attribute, you'd have to add
padding to each cell's inline style, as far as I know.
You could set it to inherit for td/tr in the sitewide css, and then set a single
value inline on the table. Anyway, only modern browsers can handle CSS table
layout properties, and those browsers don't need presentational tables in the
first place. So the question is, do we really want to wreck a number of
templates (or at least make them uglier) for the ~50% readers who use IE6/7,
because of the tiny fraction who use screen readers? (Or because of standards
purity, if role="presentation" works well with screen readers.)
There is no attribute in HTML named "click",
and I don't see any
documentation for a wikitext image parameter by that name either.
Sorry; I meant the "link" wikitext parameter but remembered the name wrong.
The point is, when you use images as icons or similar eye candy, and the pointer
changes to link style over it, the reader will expect something more relevant
than an image description page, so link= should be used. Conversely, when it is
used, it is a good guess that the image is purely presentational.
[1]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Protected_Areas_of_Colorado