Some reasons for div-itis:
1. Columns. "table cell => div" is wrong, but usually "columns => divs" is
correct.
2. Boxes. The designer wants to put a box around a group of items. There might
be a heading, a list or two and a paragraph, with border and a background. You
could do this without a
> Good topic. I'm going to re-think the whole approach on this project.
My work here is done. Now I can go get some Krystals (eg.
Whitecastles + Mustard - Holes in meat) and say to myself "I might not
know what I'm eating, but at least my pet peeve is silenced for the
moment."
Geoff Pack wrote:
Some reasons for div-itis:
1. Columns. "table cell => div" is wrong, but usually "columns => divs" is
correct.
now we are really getting into semantics. i began designing via wysiwyg
and tables. when i made the change to html/css i was having problems
with positioning an
Bert Doorn wrote:
I'd even drop id="header" and just style the h1 element. Unless you use
more than one h1 per page...
Good point, Bert.
Time to put this mark-up on a diet.
**
The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See htt
G'day
By what you're saying, I could simply have my outer wrapper for the
margins/bg stuff, and then the id'ed to replicate the whole
header, and the ul id'ed to the nav list.
This makes sense.
Image replaced title here
...etc...
I'd even drop id="header" and just style the h1 eleme
For instance, they'll put a inside a , just so that they can style the , instead of just giving the itself an id.
I never really noticed this, but I tend to code this way too. Here's a
small sample i've been playing with:
Image replaced title here
Some reasons for div-itis:
1. Columns. "table cell => div" is wrong, but usually "columns => divs" is
correct.
2. Boxes. The designer wants to put a box around a group of items. There might
be a heading, a list or two and a paragraph, with border and a background. You
could do this without a
At 06:15 PM 9/6/2005, Kenny Graham wrote:
> The most obvious one I can think
> of is the need for two background images.
Sometimes this is the case, but often times it can be avoided with a
little creativity, such as using a background image on the , and
classing the first and last to give th
> The most obvious one I can think
> of is the need for two background images.
Sometimes this is the case, but often times it can be avoided with a
little creativity, such as using a background image on the ,
and classing the first and last to give them more height and
different background images
> PS: How did you manage to avoid table layouts Lucky boy!
I'm only 21, and didn't start doing commercial sites until
recently. Before there was wide browser support for CSS, I was
just doing web design as a hobby, and didn't really care if a single
browser in the world displayed it correctly
Kenny Graham wrote:
I know that divs are more semantically neutral than tables, but is
wrapping an element in 5 divs and a span really that much better than
wrapping it in a table?
No, div-wrapping-mania isn't much better. However, standards and weak
browsers put limitations on what we can do
>
> On 07/09/2005, at 9:31 AM, Kenny Graham wrote:
>
> > In most of the previous table layout vs css layout arguments I've
> > seen on here, people refer to "divs vs tables". Now, I never
> > learned table based layouts, and don't understand them (spacer
> > gifs, etc). Because of this, I
I think it's also important to bare in mind that there might be very good
reasons for putting a inside a . The most obvious one I can think
of is the need for two background images. I think once the next standard
incorporates this and browsers support it, there will be even less need for
unwar
> what are you hoping to learn about?
I don't have a clue. But in my experience, every time I've asked
a debate-causing question on here, it's gone off on 50 tangents and
I've learned a lot. *evil grin*
Kenny Graham said:
> In most of the previous table layout vs css layout arguments I've seen on
> here, people refer to "divs vs tables". Now, I never learned table based
> layouts, and don't understand them (spacer gifs, etc). Because of this, I
> don't/can't think along the lines of "I'm replacing
On 07/09/2005, at 9:31 AM, Kenny Graham wrote:
In most of the previous table layout vs css layout arguments I've
seen on here, people refer to "divs vs tables". Now, I never
learned table based layouts, and don't understand them (spacer
gifs, etc). Because of this, I don't/can't think alon
16 matches
Mail list logo