Jason Das wrote:
> After years of css+standards+"tables must die"purity I started using
> tables again for certain specific layout issues.
>
> I tend to favor less code. So if I can do something instantly with a
> table that would take many extra lines of containing blocks and css,
> (not to
better solution later."
Thoughts?
Rick
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, September 06, 2007 12:18 PM
To: css-d@lists.css-discuss.org
Subject: Re: [css-d] Are table-based layouts still needed
>>t
> To: css-d@lists.css-discuss.org
> Subject: Re: [css-d] Are table-based layouts still needed
>
>
> >>the issue was a 5 col layout that had equal lengths.<<
>
> Actually, Ian - I *think( that might have been me. I believe the
> original question was just
>>the issue was a 5 col layout that had equal lengths.<<
Actually, Ian - I *think( that might have been me. I believe the
original question was just a question. I was one of the early
responders to this thread, and I had mentioned the *only* time I have
not been able to accomplish a layout
; Subject: Re: [css-d] Are table-based layouts still needed
>>
>>
>> Gunlaug Sørtun wrote:
>>> Divs are semantically neutral, which doesn't necessarily equate to
>>> meaningless when used to replicate a table.
>> lol. That does seem a bit of circular
Ray Leventhal wrote:
> Truer words have not been often said: 'but once you've gotten over the
> hump [learning curve] you'll never look back'.
I still would quite like to have the majority of my sites' audiences
experience a layout relying on the visual properties that as of the
moment can only
bj
Thanks for your comments, but it might have been more useful had they
not been generic. Eric was soliciting specific table challenges and
their css alternatives. I asked about a particular situation on one page
on one site. There is no caching issue, there is no nesting of tables,
there
> To: css-d@lists.css-discuss.org
> Subject: Re: [css-d] Are table-based layouts still needed
>
>
> Gunlaug Sørtun wrote:
> > Divs are semantically neutral, which doesn't necessarily equate to
> > meaningless when used to replicate a table.
>
> lol. That d
>
> 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
>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 sty
After years of css+standards+"tables must die"purity I started using
tables again for certain specific layout issues.
I tend to favor less code. So if I can do something instantly with a
table that would take many extra lines of containing blocks and css,
(not to mention extra math and numbe
> You are not using tables to structure the
> page, only what can be reasonably considered tabular data on the page.
Then the same could be said of a simple definition list. I would like
to agree with you, but am not quite comfortable with that argument.
--
E. Michael Brandt
www.divaHTML.com
Gunlaug Sørtun wrote:
> Divs are semantically neutral, which doesn't necessarily equate to
> meaningless when used to replicate a table.
lol. That does seem a bit of circular logic to me. Nevertheless, I do
appreciate your interesting links and discussion of my question. It
does seem though t
EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Marcelo de Moraes
Serpa
Sent: Sunday, September 02, 2007 6:51 PM
To: css-d@lists.css-discuss.org
Subject: [css-d] Are table-based layouts still needed
Or, do table-based layouts still have a place on the web?
There will definitly be a lot of table-based layouts for
E Michael Brandt wrote:
> http://www.badboy.ro/articles/2005-02-20/vertical_align_with_css/
> Is there a good solution that works cross browser *without resorting
> to semantically meaningless nested divs* ?
Divs are semantically neutral, which doesn't necessarily equate to
meaningless when used
On 5/9/07 (00:19) Frank said:
>This seems like a perfectly appropriate use of a table to me. You could
>achieve a similar effect with an unordered list and floating images, but
>I don't think it would be very more machine reader friendly, and it
>would be much harder to get the alignment betwe
E Michael Brandt wrote:
> ...
>
> I wonder if someone has a good CSS solution for this table: Two columns,
> the first is of images, one per row, but of varying heights, the
> second is of descriptive text of varying - but multiline - amounts which
> I wish to center vertically to the righ
Eric A. Meyer wrote:
> The focus on whether there are layout
> types that are difficult or impossible to achieve in CSS is perfect
Just today I relented and, in the interests of time, put up a table
based layout for non-tabular data.
I wonder if someone has a good CSS solution for this table:
> > Re tables for LAYOUT- nope, not needed. Tables do occasionally come in
> > handy for tabular data though.
Much like H1 to H6 occasionally might be handy for headlines...
--
Chris Heilmann
Book: http://www.beginningjavascript.com
Blog: http://www.wait-till-i.com
Writing: http://icant.co.uk/
_
bj wrote:
>> I still see many famous and really relevant websites with
>> a dirty table-based soup layout. I wonder wether was lazy, or if he didn't
>> know that he could do it with divs and CSS or if he knew that this kind of
>> layout was viable to do with CSS.
>>
>
> Re tables for LAYOUT- n
>I still see many famous and really relevant websites with
>a dirty table-based soup layout. I wonder wether was lazy, or if he didn't
>know that he could do it with divs and CSS or if he knew that this kind of
>layout was viable to do with CSS.
Most of the sites you speak of, I imagine, are most
> > In other words, can pure CSS layouts do everything a table-based layout can
> > do?
I also tought that table layouts would take a lot of time to disapears
but I must say that it tends to disapear more quickly than I tought. I
often use "Ouline table cells" option of webdevelopper extension on
Marcelo de Moraes Serpa wrote:
> In other words, can pure CSS layouts do everything a table-based layout can
> do?
>
> I ask this becouse I still see many famous and really relevant websites with
> a dirty table-based soup layout. I wonder wether was lazy, or if he didn't
> know that he could do
>>do you think table-based layouts still need to be used for some
particular layouts?<<
Not really.
>>In other words, can pure CSS layouts do everything a table-based
layout can do?<<
Yes, save a single exception :)
I haven't done a table-based layout in a looong time. Haven't
needed
> Subject: [css-d] Are table-based layouts still needed
>
>
> Or, do table-based layouts still have a place on the web?
>
> There will definitly be a lot of table-based layouts for many
> times to come.
> Not everyone has the knowledge nor is obligated to use CSS-based lay
Or, do table-based layouts still have a place on the web?
There will definitly be a lot of table-based layouts for many times to come.
Not everyone has the knowledge nor is obligated to use CSS-based layouts.
But from a web professional standpoint, do you think table-based layouts
still need to b
26 matches
Mail list logo
