separation of presentation and logic. Other than that (which is the primary
complaint of style sheet proponents) I've no problem with it - that's what
I'm using, in fact.
Take a look at some of the links in this thread however - you'll see plenty
of tirades against tables (some more intelligent that others). I agree with
you - there's not much basis there. However being able to separate content
from presentation IS a good thing - as long as that presentation is flexible
enough and style sheets often aren't.
Tables, according to purists, are defiantly not for layout - they are not
just containers. They (again, according to purists) are purely for the
display of tabular data - they should never be used for layouts. We use
them for layouts simple because they're so damnably GOOD for layouts (much
better than style sheets for many tasks), but they weren't actually designed
to do that.
I don't believe that CSS offers everything needed in terms of page layout -
this is clearly the case since you can't make many simple layouts. I think
that positioning of elements is pretty much the definition of layout
capabilities - I'm not sure what you mean there.
Jim Davis
_____
From: Irvin Gomez [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, May 26, 2004 6:26 PM
To: CF-Community
Subject: Re: Damn CSS... Damn it to hell!
If you're very familiar with CSS, then you'll know that CSS doesn't offer
any layout capabilities, beyond the styling and positioning of page
elements, like tables and their common counterpart, the <div> tag.
Tables and div's are just containers for other tags. As such, they are the
building blocks for your web page. CSS helps you use them as needed. What
you choose as the basis for your layout is up to you.
I know I didn't tell you anything you didn't know. My point is that CSS
already offers enough for you to create anything you might need in terms of
laying out the page.
After all, what's wrong with the hybrid layout technique we discussed?
>Actually that site doesn't have any examples that show columns with equal
>heights - and thus lies the problem.
>
>
>
>Just to be clear I'm actually quite good at CSS - been doing it for years
>and my designs have been featured in a couple of CSS books (early books to
>be sure, but actual-factual books nonetheless). I know this stuff well.
>
>
>
>There are work-arounds available (although there are none that I personally
>like): my point is that the issue should not require a workaround. The
>replacement for table-based layout should, at least, do everything table
>based layout does! Preferably easier and more clearly.
>
>
>
>Jim Davis
>
>
>
>>Every time I get into this it amazes me that CSS made it so damn difficult
>>to do one of the most common layouts online: a full-width header, two
>>equal-height (despite content) columns (one for navigation and one for
>>content), and a full-width footer. In other words, this:
>
>Lots of great examples here:
>
>http://glish.com/css/
_____
[Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings]
