CSS display:table - Pros and Cons for layouts

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by digitalpbk

display:table .. gee thats new .. never knew of that

---

Just remember that IE7 and earlier do not understand it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stomme poes

I also want a parent selector and a pony for Christmas.

---

I don't understand. I mean, I get the pony and all, but what's wrong with your parents? :nono:

CSS parent selectors : )

"There's no need for a thread on pros and cons of using <table> for layout because that is just completely wrong in the first place."


Hmmm, that's funny, because Kevin Yank keeps telling us that there's nothing wrong with using tables for layout purposes.


Table-based layout is the next best thing

Quote:

---

For years now, enlightened designers who have embraced CSS layout have had to bend over backwards to produce complex designs that would have been trivial to produce using the HTML table-based layout techniques of the past.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by webgyver

"There's no need for a thread on pros and cons of using <table> for layout because that is just completely wrong in the first place."


Hmmm, that's funny, because Kevin Yank keeps telling us that there's nothing wrong with using tables for layout purposes.


Table-based layout is the next best thing

---

He is behind the times if he is still saying that :). CSS is quick, efficient, and doesn't trash the markup like tables for layouts do :)

Quote:

---

Hmmm, that's funny, because Kevin Yank keeps telling us that there's nothing wrong with using tables for layout purposes.

---

No he doesn't.

Quote:

---

He is behind the times if he is still saying that . CSS is quick, efficient, and doesn't trash the markup like tables for layouts do

---

How long has Paul been working on the sticky footer? This is the sort of hoop jumping he's referring to. Not many could pull of something like Paul's sticky footer quick and easy, but most could with a table.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by markbrown4

No he doesn't.

How long has Paul been working on the sticky footer? This is the sort of hoop jumping he's referring to. Not many could pull of something like Paul's sticky footer quick and easy, but most could with a table.

---

Paul didn't take long to make that (I'd assume). He just has to keep modifying it because the browsers aren't up to parr (Opera redraw bug, IE8 same issue) and then other people keep putting up bad examples of some and thus we get all the problems with it :).

So to answer your question, not long at all :). I will admit that in the beginning CSS/divs may have looked stupid in comparision to tables (complexity wise) but now that it has been a while and people have gotten a grip on it, it's not too bad. I never even learned tables to start, I always thought of them as stupid (I never even knew about semantics back then)

Not too many probably could make a sticky footer. THat's why we have examples up :). People just keep polluting hte internet with bad examples though (*cough* Ryan Fait *cough*) :)

You're preaching to the choir. There are still things that tables do more easily than CSS - otherwise they would not have introduced display: table.

Quote:

---

Not too many probably could make a sticky footer. That's why we have examples up.

---

That's precisely my point - some parts of CSS are so difficult that we need to rely on examples by someone who has spent hours tweaking it. We all love CSS here :) but there's no point glorifying it into something it isn't.

I agree tables can do some things easier but quite frankly some things tables can do easier (vertical alignment for example) just is hard for those who don't know how to do it :). Tables do make it easier, though not so much where you shouldn't do CSS.

Mark, examples are put up for everything. I used to even have an example showing all the different ways to call stylesheets. People put up examples to show something. It doesn't have to be hard or complex. It can be whatever the author wants. Sticky footers are not hard for anyone who even has a basic understanding of CSS, or have even a clue on how to do it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by webgyver

"There's no need for a thread on pros and cons of using <table> for layout because that is just completely wrong in the first place."

---

There isn't a thread on that topic. This thread is about CSS tables - not HTML tables.

Why do people keep hijacking this CSS thread to discuss the HTML <table> tag when that is nothing whatever to do with what this thread is about.

This thread is here to discuss the pros and cons of using the CSS commands

Code CSS:

---

display:table
display:table-row
display:table-cell

---

Everyone who matters already knows that page layout should be done using CSS and the question is whether IE6 and IE7 should hold back using CSS tables in your page layout.

Off Topic:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RyanReese

Sticky footers are not hard for anyone who even has a basic understanding of CSS

---

Baloney :)

Quote:

---

or have even a clue on how to do it.

---

Ahh, so you're saying it's easy to do if you know how to do it. Brilliant.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by markbrown4

Off Topic:


Baloney :)

Ahh, so you're saying it's easy to do if you know how to do it. Brilliant.

---

Not at all. I didn't know how to do a sticky footer and I sketched up a rough mockup for my first time a few years ago when I first started. It wasn't hard at all (though I didn't do the way Paul made).

I guess not everyone CAN do it, but that lies in the persons fault, not for the technique being too complex :). And it wasn't baloney what I said, it was IMHO.

Quote:

---

Why do people keep hijacking this CSS thread to discuss the HTML <table> tag when that is nothing whatever to do with what this thread is about.

---

Maybe because of the provocative name you gave this thread? (ooooh, provocative! : ) I don't even agree with the terminology "css tables". Just because I throw display: table on something... it means I want the box to act like a table style-wise. I also use lists and make them into menus, which are special from other kinds of lists (they ain't no recipes). I don't give those special terminology either though.

That and I don't build in grids and rarely use display table, and never for full-page layouts. I don't think I'm the odd-one out either. For anyone who gets their kicks building whole layouts with display: table, great, and it's nice to have the idea brought up in a thread like this, but as you can see, people read "tables for layout pros and cons" and this is what you get. Maybe if the title had been "display: table for layout, pros and cons"?

Quote:

---

"display: table for layout, pros and cons"

---

I will have to agree, if the thread gets hijacked its most likely the threads fault.

for this thread its definitely the case, as its clearly about: <table>'s for layout, pros and cons.

Off Topic:

I Have to concur if it weren't for the fact it was in the CSS Section, and I happened to see a thread entitled: "Tables for Layout Pros and Cons" my first guess would be the topic was to be about marked up "tables" versus CSS positioning or something similar.

Not a very good title at all. Even if within the CSS Section. Reconsider renaming it to something more apt or at least mention CSS in the title itself. Else you will get idiots like me posting pointless suggestions on a different subject. For example; I might say it's prohibited to nest a table. When obviously I'd be referring to a DTD rather than a CSS value. ;-)

I took the liberty of changing the thread title Stephen :)

There is one occasion where I actively promote the use of table based design, and that's HTML E-mails for which there's often no viable alternative due to the poor level of standards support. However for website design itself, I totally agree with not using conventional tables for design, as for CSS tables, their not widely supported enough for it to be a safe bet so I'll stick to my floats and positioning techniques. :)

Alex see post #60 :)