Wrongly described as "entirely CSS-based"

I think this should have at least 'normal' priority.

Note: I don't use Interlaced. But if, in fact, he says "entirely CSS-based theme" (literally), then his description is accurate - he mentioned not a thing about "layout", and tables can be styled via CSS just as well as any other element.

I think it is just a matter of interpretation. I think most web designers when they say 'entirely CSS based' mean that even the layout is handled in CSS and not by using tables.

Sure tables can be styled using CSS but here that is not the case. In this theme tables are used for layout (i.e. presentation) and thus encroach on what CSS is supposed to do. Thus the theme is NOT entirely CSS based. It uses tables for layout and for everything else (I think) it uses CSS.

We'll just have to respectfully disagree then. Cheers!

I'm with Morbus on this one. Truth is you can create Drupal themes using nothing but stylesheets. Thus, it's entirely possible to create a table-based albeit entirely CSS-driven theme.

Personally I'd prioritise this as minor. The person reporting the bug is merely arguing semantics. This is something that would probably be better discussed in private with the project's maintainer.

Agreed, although this is a problem in semantics that will arise again and again. It will require some patient (and redundant) explanation of context for newbies to Drupal themes.

The problem is that zirvap is speaking from the webmaster's world, not the Drupal world (yet ;-) So when he sees the phrase "CSS-based" he immediately thinks of the familiar webmaster debate between table-based layouts and tableless ("div-based" or "css-based") layouts. He ignores the word "theme" which is in fact the subject of the phrase. Varun makes the same mistake. They are thinking on the presentation layer.

But the theme designer (and Morbus) was not talking about the layout at all. He was talking about mechanics: the implementation methodology used by the theme (within the infrastructure of Drupal). zirvap's complaint, in other words, is addressed to the wrong conceptual level. So Morbus explains the difference, but then Varun comes along and blurs the line again.

Round and round and round we go...

Tangential Analogy: There is a similar problem I often encounter with the phrase "object orientation". The problem is that OO is a conceptual methodology that can be applied to anything, either abstract or concrete. For instance, you can use an OO approach to specify a design that will be written in a linear language, or you can use an OO approach to specify a design which is OO at the programmer's level but linear at the user's (visual interface) level. In fact most command-line-based utilities are built exactly this way. Therefore, whenever I say the phrase "object oriented" to a client, I must be careful to indicate whether I am talking about

1. my development methodology (document/schema) or
   
2. the system's internal methodology (language/processor) or
   
3. the user interface (visual/controls)

LVX
TF

It's a template. It's described as "entirely CSS-based". That means no table markup for layout purposes, to just about anyone with experience in such matters.

If it said, "all styling done with CSS", I don't think there would be the same confusion. But that word "entirely" next to "CSS" is going to continue making people assume it is a tableless design and waste their time downloading, installing, trying it out, only to come back here dissapointed.

There are plenty of other themes which are clear in stating that tables are still used for layout. Count me as another vote for asking this one to please do the same.

++1

Sorry Morbus, but it's standard in the web design world for "entirely CSS" to mean NO TABLES FOR LAYOUT. Zeldman, Eric Meyer, Molly H, Douglas Bowman ---all the w3 rock stars have taught us to use it so :)

Here's Douglass Bowman's groundbreaking "Throwing tables out the window"

http://www.stopdesign.com/articles/throwing_tables/

Cheers,
liza

corrected for Drupal 5 and beyond. not going to mess w/ the earlier versions.