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