>It does seem though that non-table solutions to my specific problem use so >much code, and add so much complexity, that I still lean towards the >more straightforward table.
It may appear that non table solutions "use so much code", but that's just not the case when you consider that external stylesheets are cached and the html isn't. In reality, on a table based site the html is much, much heavier, and it needs to be parsed by the browser for each and every page. On a site using external css for layout there is much less bandwidth being used. And at editing time you'll be glad you only have to edit one file. Re the complexity, I'm remembering some of the nested inside nested inside nested table layouts I used to see. Add in the IFrames that were typically added to these sites and it was a coding nightmare! Give me clean, clear css any day! Yes, there's a steep learning curve with css layouts (and it seems you're considering avoiding that climb) but once you've gotten over the hump you'll never look back. CSS is a different way of thinking. Once the language is learned it's actually, in most ways, less complex than table based layouts. It's layers rather than a grid, and different types of layers (floats, absolutes, etc) have predictable behaviors. -- Ciao for now, bj mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://bitchslappin.net - Taking a Hard Look at the Business of Politics http://greenspeak.org - Small scale local environmental action http://kickasswebdesign.com ______________________________________________________________________ css-discuss [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.css-discuss.org/mailman/listinfo/css-d IE7 information -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/?page=IE7 List wiki/FAQ -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/ Supported by evolt.org -- http://www.evolt.org/help_support_evolt/
