The interests and motivations are different. If I am asked to do a pretty newsletter for Word's rendering engine behind Outlook, I would like to tell them to ask an HTML table guy. It took me a few years to learn CSS, but I won't spend time with learning tables.
Some don't like CSS because of the workarounds to be found and new methods to be invented every day, but that's the fun part of CSS, at least to me. Frankly, I find tables boring, the last new idea how to use them was born a decade ago, a solved and glued puzzle. Maybe the fun part of tables is the control you gain over them, I just don't know. However, the day the CSS-framework-guys win and produce something endlessly boring that does not require an understanding of CSS anymore approaches, so maybe it's time to move on. How about a discussion like: how do we use CSS 3 with an IE6-userbase of greater than x% in years to come? Can we re-think degradation, this time without grace, and convince clients and co-workers that a page does not have to look the same across browsers, as long as a basic functionality is preserved? But how to design with and without border-radius, with and without multi-columns, with and without multiple backgrounds? I don't know how to find a pragmatic balance between CSS 2 and 3. Ingo ______________________________________________________________________ css-discuss [cs...@lists.css-discuss.org] http://www.css-discuss.org/mailman/listinfo/css-d List wiki/FAQ -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/ List policies -- http://css-discuss.org/policies.html Supported by evolt.org -- http://www.evolt.org/help_support_evolt/
