It seems like they just weren't very pragmatic. you'd think four years ago
when they were thinking of recommending the spec somebody would have piped
up and said "sounds good. but can you do cnet.com in it?" If the answer was
"sorta. maybe, if you..." then it would be an automatic "back to the drawing
board". ;^)
There's a reason most sites (most big sites) are still table-based - and
it's not just tradition. It also has a lot to do with the fact that CSS
just doesn't cut it for a lot of things. And dammit - it should!
Jim Davis
[Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings]
