jtaber at johntaber.net
Mon Jun 5 18:38:18 MDT 2006
Tyler Gee wrote:
>> I disagree, of course, someone has to. I can do a tableless site very
>> quickly and the code is cleaner, more easy to understand, and much
>> to modify and works well in all the browsers I test (which of course
>> the most popular). However, I do not think tables are evil, like many
>> people do. Tables were made for tabular data and work very well for
>> In fact, if I had to choose tableless over tables for tabular data, I
>> usualy choose tables. That is what they were made for.
> I would agree with the disagreement. :) Tables are great for tabular
> data but definitely not for layout. Working with div's is way easier
> and allows way more control.
And I'll disagree (kind of) with the disagreement - while in "theory"
standards and CSS is the way to go, in practice the CSS browser
implementations still leave a lot to be desired. Last year I drank the
CSS koolaid and spent a whole weekend converting our website to being
CSS based - looked great in my Firefox. Then Monday someone called and
said they couldn't read my webpage (in IE). When I checked it out on
someone's Window's machine, it was unreadable and looked like crap (I
used stronger terms then). I had to scrap all the work and go back to
nested tables. One option is to just tell all your users that your
website runs best in Firefox. But until most browsers are compliant,
your choice is to either keep it simple or test like heck. Whatever
works for you is great. But before anyone else jumps into using CSS,
they should know it's likely they will have to spend hours testing on
various browsers and doing lots of tweaking. The firefox plug-in
looked really interesting and I'll download it tonight. I'm just trying
to save other people from suffering the same frustration and time cost.
I've seen beautiful websites done with CSS so the time might be worth it
- just know it in advance.
More information about the UPHPU