[UPHPU] More CSS frustration

[Randy Moller]

XHTML is a strict standardization (basically)of HTML anyway, and very easy
to adhere to. Doing so helps developers to work on each other's code
effectively. CSS1/2/P have evolved into a fairly robust layout definition
language. There are many things that can/should be done with it that table
layouts can't do.

As one person said earlier, CSS will never completely replace tables, and I
cringe every time someone says "tabless  design". It should/will never
happen. There have been very good points made here, but they ALL refer to
their own "correctness" based on what the particular programmer
does/doesn't/can't/won't/will/ do with either. The truth is, none of that
matters. What "should" be done in all cases is to use the technology as it
was designed to be used. Learn what you have to, and keep learning.


-----Original Message-----
From: uphpu-bounces at uphpu.org [mailto:uphpu-bounces at uphpu.org] On Behalf Of
Wade Preston Shearer
Sent: Saturday, January 20, 2007 10:32 PM
To: UPHPU General Discussion
Subject: Re: [UPHPU] More CSS frustration

> I don't feel like the browsers are up to par yet to allow for so- 
> called "pure css" implementations on web pages in a robust cross- 
> platform way. In fact, if people are going to keep advocating table- 
> less design, then there'd need to be an acceptable replacement. In  
> other words, something that can properly do auto-sizing rows and  
> columns. (No, floating divs can't do that.) The way people try to  
> float divs, abosolute position things, and fix absolute dimensions  
> (height and/or width) on things to make them work is a much less  
> robust and flexible solution (even though it might be "pure css")  
> than the corresponding implementation that may include actual  
> tables. CSS is supposed to make it easier to change and override  
> things, but the absolutely-sized-and-positioned floating div thing  
> that is so popular now is so incredibly fragile that I've seen it  
> stop working properly with changes as simple as adding or removing  
> content or doing a text-size increase or decrease in the browser,  
> or a font replacement.

Browsers are never going to be up to par to allow for "pure CSS"  
layouts. No one is trying to make them be. Anyone using CSS to do  
things that you have criticized here is using XHTML/CSS technology  
incorrectly.


> Everyone wants to downplay tables, even to the point of starting  
> rumors that they're going to be deprecated at some time, but the  
> fact of the matter is that browser have really good and much more  
> consistent support for tables than for floating and CSS1 and CSS2,  
> and have had it for a very long time. It is really easy to write  
> clean html with a bit of CSS and have it work without any hacks or  
> contortions across all major browsers. Where I have to make good  
> maintainable code as quickly and efficiently as possible every day,  
> I haven't found a good way to make a living trying to make them all  
> "pure css". But everyone is in different situations, and the same  
> answer isn't always right given that we all have different factors  
> and priorities involved in our decisions.

No serious, professional developer is trying to downplay tables. You  
must be reading the ramblings of novices or have misunderstood  
somewhere. When people reference CSS and tables in the same subject  
it is in regards to not using tables for layout, not that they  
shouldn't be used at all. Tables are to contain rows and columns of  
items, not build the structure of a page. And, for doing this, there  
is plenty-good support across browsers and platforms.

_______________________________________________

UPHPU mailing list
UPHPU at uphpu.org
http://uphpu.org/mailman/listinfo/uphpu
IRC: #uphpu on irc.freenode.net

-- 
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.432 / Virus Database: 268.17.3/642 - Release Date: 1/20/2007
10:31 PM
 

-- 
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.432 / Virus Database: 268.17.3/642 - Release Date: 1/20/2007
10:31 PM