standards are all well and good, and where possible I have no problem with adhering to the letter and spirit of webs standards, but sometimes things like wrap around tables are indispensible.
-- Neerav Bhatt http://www.bhatt.id.au Web Development & IT consultancy
Mike Pepper wrote:
Bert,*****************************************************
I take a pragmatic approach to tables and columnar design: use a single table with a single row and as many cells as I need (although invariably a max of 3). Gets rid of all sorts of cross browser problems. I have had a couple of Gecko purists efforting a table-less design for me just to prove it can be done. What's the point? They've both since agreed it's far simpler, involves far less fudging and is far more efficient to use the single table approach -- especially as I use alternate skinning incorporating vertical borders: www.seowebsitepromotion.com. This layout uses two elastic and one fixed width column. Why fixed for column 3? Because I need to accommodate as much text as possible in the first two columns and use the right column to display fixed size images, and I need to maintain an aesthetically satisfactory display at 640, 800 and 1024+ screen resolutions.
CSS isn't up to natural multi-columnar structures without a lot of faffing around. Once CSS evolves to adopt columns and browsers incorporate the changes I'll happily use them. Until then it's a matter of commonsense. I don't need to prove a point, I just make sites standards-compliant and accessible in as great a range or browsers (including Lynx) as possible.
Mike Pepper Accessible Web Developer www.seowebsitepromotion.com
The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
*****************************************************
