On Fri, 22 Apr 2005 13:36:25 +0100, Stevio <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
One of the first points on that web site is: "Sites built with web standards take less time to develop"
I have to disagree. Trying to lay a site out with CSS can be very complicated and time consuming
...when you don't have equal experience in CSS as you do in table-layouts.
given all that hacks that you have to research
or remember.
and use in order to get things to look right and work right across multiple browsers.
I code for two browsers: good ones and IE.
Table layout, on the other hand, is straightforward and simple.
<table><td><td><td><td>, <bonanza!>
Here is something that annoys me too - people dismiss table layout because basically, using tables for layout is not what tables are intended for.
I dismiss it because tables add complexity to my server-side code, which is complex enough without worrying about markup.
It's quite easy to output few <p>s or <div>s than to worry about proper colspans/rowspans, order of data, etc.
Not only that, newer CSS versions introduce tables into CSS! Reinventing the wheel anyone?
Tables for layout aren't good, but tabular layout isn't that all bad.
The point is that you can easily manipulate layout without touching HTML. Columns?
#left, #right {display: table-cell;}and that's it.
Hybrid layouts aren't that all bad, if you can't manage to handle floats'n'stuff.
The worst thing is when you use 9-cell table with spacer gifs simply to get something like:
foo {padding: 1em; margin: 1em; border: 1px dashed black;}
or when you slice your images adding useless markup and increasing load time (TCP/IP + HTTP overhead) just to get effect of:
foo {background: url(image); position: relative;}
foo bar {position: absolute;}-- regards, Kornel Lesiński
****************************************************** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list & getting help ******************************************************
