Maybe this would be an interesting alternative runtime environment for PySpark? I think currently PySpark runs in Python and somehow interacts with a JVM and relies on copying data from one to the other.
Jython has historically lagged hard, often falling behind for very extended periods. For a time their releases basically just stopped, which led to them missing support for pretty much anything between 2.7 and 3.6 (iirc). I know the project basically rebooted at some point, but I've since lost interest.
IIRC this used to be propagated back in the early HTML5 days. At least that's how it got to my personal website. I might've got it from html5boilerplate.com or a similar site.
If you want to remove the semantics of table elements, you could set a role="presentation" attribute on all table-related tags. I'm wondering what HTML semantics enthusiasts will say about this. ;-)
You almost got me. After all why not? So I had to go read stuff, and think more about it than I would have. So thanks for this.
So: <table role="presentation"> is probably mostly fine, but not great, and not good practice.
The ARIA spec [1] says:
> 2. Notes on ARIA Use in HTML
> 2.1 First Rule of ARIA Use
> If you can use a native HTML element [HTML51] or attribute with the semantics and behavior you require already built in, instead of re-purposing an element and adding an ARIA role, state or property to make it accessible, then do so.
That's because simpler is easily more accessible. ARIA is last resort, when all else failed. ARIA is complex and not always well implemented, or implemented at all, and when it is implemented, interpretations can differ. Your content will be more accessible to more users / for more browsers if it doesn't rely on ARIA to be accessible. And more often than not, you can do more harm than good by using aria attributes, because it's easy to misuse them, which is worse than not using them at all. Now, ARIA is still very useful and should be used when it improves things over what HTML/CSS supports by itself, but table-based layouts have readily available HTML/CSS solutions.
My opinion is that there's no good reason today to use tables for presentation. One of the reasons is always the same: separation of concerns. Structure your content, in the simplest possible way, and then style it. Structured content, with a structure that's as simple as possible, is more easily accessible. Add divs if really necessary for styling (which don't really change the structure, since they don't have meaning - keeping in mind that they are a compromise).
It's funny how everyone seem convinced by the principle of separation of concerns, except for HTML/CSS/JS.
You could use divs with display:table(-row|-cell) for the same result. Although CSS flex or CSS grid would let you achieve the same thing with a simpler structure and will allow you to have a responsive design. Fat tables with side menus are unwieldy on small screens and your <table><tr><td>-based structure will make it more difficult to offer a usable design to them.
Table layout are also not great on text / terminal-based browsers. Letting the content flow from top to bottom will be way better. You have this for free if you don't use tables, because usually terminal browsers don't understand CSS.
I would then reverse the question: why use tables when you can use display:table, CSS Flexbox or CSS Grid? What are the benefits? Especially when they are simpler as soon as you learned once how to do your favorite layout using these "new" things. I won't be convinced by any answer that sounds like "I don't really want to learn this stuff" because if we are trying to answer "What is the most correct way to do this", we should seek to use the better version, not the one we are familiar with.
It seems to me "Why not use <table role=presentation>?" is a bit like "Why not use this carafe labeled 'this is a glass' as a glass?". Sure, why not, it will work, but if you have a glass now, even if you need to pour the water into the glass before you can drink it, isn't it better? (of course, maybe not the best analogy, I'm not good at analogies, but I hope it can help understand my perspective on <table role=presentation>).
I also believe role="presentation" or role="none" is a code smell. It has legitimate uses (I guess), but the use better be clearly justified.
one is a table the other pretends to be a table. There has to be a lot wrong for the table to forget what it is. try disabling style.
css also gets complicated much faster than html. I like to offload complexity to less complicated areas.
a practical example: i look at each row and set rowspan for duplicate values. a series of rows might have week 22 as their first cell and multiple with monday as their second.
How about "one pretends to be a layout, and the other is a layout"?
I don't understand well what you are saying, but:
> a practical example: i look at each row and set rowspan for duplicate values. a series of rows might have week 22 as their first cell and multiple with monday as their second.
This seems to be a case of using a table as a table, which is fine. You should use tables when you are trying to represent tabular data.
This seems to fall under the unconvincing "I don't really want to learn this stuff". This seems to be the only reason people are tables for layouts today.
People doing this are probably not interested in the rhetorical efficacy of the justification. In other words it probably doesn't matter whether you find it convincing.
I do. But to be honest, some phones are so thin that I fear I'll accidentally break them when sitting down. I'd rather take a thicker but smaller phone because of that.
I'm glad to see people recognized for their work, even in such a small way though. As they continue to scroll and you start to see titles like "2nd assistant to the HR Team Lead" I can't help but wonder how much is bloat and how much improved the games might be if the teams were leaner.
I'm also torn on the concept of "production babies" which is basically just acknowledging that some parent was forced to abandon their family and newborn child for weeks-months of crunch because of bullshit arbitrary release schedules
I assume that a large number of people in video game and movie credits just did part time work or a short project and they weren’t exclusive with this particular project
Like when you list the accountants, is it that those accountants were working ONLY on this project or was this one of a dozen things they were handling at the time?
When we list a musician in the credits, is it a musician who was ONLY working on this project or was this one of a dozen things they were handling at the time?
I'm always amazed how many games in the early years have no credits at all. And it would bum me out because I wanted to know who coded this? Who's music is it? Did the coder do the graphics too?
It was only working in the industry that I got answers to most of these from seeing hundreds of resumes and demo reels. (How else would I have found out who was behind Virtua Hamster?)
I'm not sure about the poster though. This is not necessarily communist, as this was just the style of propaganda posters of all kinds, that came up in the first half of the 20th century.
> The implication of this design choice—that communist values are the solution to decades of rampant consumerism
Completely absurd. The association is not with communism, but with propaganda posters. It's true that Americans are commonly conditioned to associate propaganda posters with communism, but the assertion above is an unreasonable leap.
