SitePoint Sponsor

User Tag List

Page 2 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast
Results 26 to 50 of 135
  1. #26
    SitePoint Enthusiast
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    I reside in Newport Rhode Island USA
    Posts
    31
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Ha! ha! ha! Vinnie, you are the best! i like that, she is valid and shining now. keep up the standards.

  2. #27
    SitePoint Wizard mPeror's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Saudi Arabia
    Posts
    1,725
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by MrLen
    LJK, That layout is shocking. I could make a better div layout with my eyes closed.
    no you can't.
    Quote Originally Posted by MrLen
    The next time I ask for comments and someone pipes up about the tables, I can just send them here and tell'em I don't want to know about or discuss the issue.
    because you can't make tableless layouts.
    Quote Originally Posted by MrLen
    However, it does comprise of a few tables., for better functionality.
    What a horrible excuse.
    Quote Originally Posted by MrLen
    I can quite easily do that myself, and probably better than most people posting here.
    Nope you're not cocky boy. I doubt you can even make tableless layouts.
    Quote Originally Posted by MrLen
    It amazes me how many people loosely call a css/div template a "css template". The template above "is" a CSS template. Except, for practical reasons I have used a combination of tables and div's.
    They're called "CSS templates" most likely because they're controlled from CSS not HTML (like layouts here ). With your tables you can't do major changes to the layout without modifying your xHTML.
    Quote Originally Posted by MrLen
    There aren't many people that actually know what they're talking about.
    Like yourself. You claim that you're very good at CSS layouts yet you still think that tables provide better "funcionalities".
    Quote Originally Posted by MrLen
    My middle name is DIV and I can make a DIV layout better than the whole lot of you.
    Yea right! You could've made that template with MUCH less , easy to maintain HTML code if you used a DIV layout. But apparently you don't know what you're talking about.
    Quote Originally Posted by MrLen
    I can completely change the look of the template, merely by modifying the css.
    Yea probably the colors or something , but can you swap the left menu with the right menu by modifying the CSS file only? i doubt that.
    Quote Originally Posted by MrLen
    So all those people who want to tell me that "HTML" (which I am not even using) isn't meant for layout
    oh come on ! you're talking as if HTML and xHTML are completley different languages. Whether you're using HTML or xHTML , it's still not meant for layout.
    Quote Originally Posted by MrLen
    go tell someone who doesn't know
    you don't know and you don't wanna know.

  3. #28
    Non-Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2001
    Location
    Melbourne, Australia
    Posts
    455
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Ok, I'm going to make a CSS layout of this template, which will look identical.

    So then everything you've said above will be rendered incorrect.

    HOWEVER, I will not be able to use that DIV template for my purposes.

    I just have to get it out of the way now, so in future I don't have to put up with accusations like that again.

    MrLeN
    Last edited by MrLeN; Sep 12, 2005 at 22:17.

  4. #29
    Non-Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2001
    Location
    Melbourne, Australia
    Posts
    455
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Originally Posted by MrLen
    LJK, That layout is shocking. I could make a better div layout with my eyes closed.

    no you can't.
    YOU DON'T KNOW!

    Quote:
    Originally Posted by MrLen
    The next time I ask for comments and someone pipes up about the tables, I can just send them here and tell'em I don't want to know about or discuss the issue.

    because you can't make tableless layouts.
    YOU DON'T KNOW!

    Quote:
    Originally Posted by MrLen
    However, it does comprise of a few tables., for better functionality.

    What a horrible excuse.
    YOU DON'T KNOW!

    Quote:
    Originally Posted by MrLen
    I can quite easily do that myself, and probably better than most people posting here.

    Nope you're not cocky boy. I doubt you can even make tableless layouts.
    YOU DON'T KNOW!

    Quote:
    Originally Posted by MrLen
    It amazes me how many people loosely call a css/div template a "css template". The template above "is" a CSS template. Except, for practical reasons I have used a combination of tables and div's.

    They're called "CSS templates" most likely because they're controlled from CSS not HTML (like layouts here ). With your tables you can't do major changes to the layout without modifying your xHTML.
    YOU DON'T KNOW!

    Quote:
    Originally Posted by MrLen
    There aren't many people that actually know what they're talking about.

    Like yourself. You claim that you're very good at CSS layouts yet you still think that tables provide better "funcionalities".
    YOU DON'T KNOW!

    Quote:
    Originally Posted by MrLen
    My middle name is DIV and I can make a DIV layout better than the whole lot of you.

    Yea right! You could've made that template with MUCH less , easy to maintain HTML code if you used a DIV layout. But apparently you don't know what you're talking about.
    YOU DON'T KNOW!

    Quote:
    Originally Posted by MrLen
    I can completely change the look of the template, merely by modifying the css.

    Yea probably the colors or something , but can you swap the left menu with the right menu by modifying the CSS file only? i doubt that.
    YOU DON'T KNOW!

    Quote:
    Originally Posted by MrLen
    So all those people who want to tell me that "HTML" (which I am not even using) isn't meant for layout

    oh come on ! you're talking as if HTML and xHTML are completley different languages. Whether you're using HTML or xHTML , it's still not meant for layout.
    YOU DON'T KNOW!

    Quote:
    Originally Posted by MrLen
    go tell someone who doesn't know

    you don't know and you don't wanna know.
    YOU DON'T KNOW!

    http://www.aesap.com/css-template/index.html

    Now, you can all drool, rub up against and lick your screens. But I am not going to use this template, because to use a DIV only template is OVERKILL. Further, my original template, which uses tables and DIV's is more functional. I can do more with it and it's easier to edit, modify and maintain.

    Also, I included a list for the left menu, especially for Kravvitz. However, I am not going to use that system, because I like to use DIVS.

    Now, my point is that most people only use DIV templates so they can look as if they know more. I can build DIV Templates. I can build Table templates. Or I can craete templates with a combination of DIV's and Tables. However, unlike most you you trippa's, I also know when to use DIV's or Tables and I don't just use DIV's, merely so I can have group hugs with other DIV lovers.

    The template is also 100% W3C compliant, in XHTML and CSS. There's not one table.

    Just because a person doesn't use DIV's only, it doesn't mean they don't know how. Maybe, just maybe they actually know and consider more than you do/can?

    Did you ever consider that?

    If you think tables are for tabular data only...

    YOU DON'T KNOW!

    MrLeN
    Last edited by MrLeN; Sep 13, 2005 at 04:19.

  5. #30
    Non-Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2001
    Location
    Melbourne, Australia
    Posts
    455
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Just uploaded a centered version.

    All I did was change the align class from 100% to 770px.

    http://www.aesap.com/css-template/index2.html

    MrLeN

  6. #31
    SitePoint Author silver trophybronze trophy

    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Ankh-Morpork
    Posts
    12,159
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    If that's your idea of good CSS design, I think you should stick to your tables.
    Birnam wood is come to Dunsinane

  7. #32
    Non-Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2001
    Location
    Melbourne, Australia
    Posts
    455
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    It's not my idea of a good CSS design. It's my website, converted to DIV format.

    Did you just get out of bed?

    MrLeN

  8. #33
    SitePoint Author silver trophybronze trophy

    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Ankh-Morpork
    Posts
    12,159
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by MrLeN
    Now, you can all drool, rub up against and lick your screens.
    ...
    It's not my idea of a good CSS design. It's my website, converted to DIV format.
    If it's not your idea of a good CSS design, why should we drool and rub up against our screens?
    Birnam wood is come to Dunsinane

  9. #34
    Non-Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    4,300
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Hello

    Not bad the CSS Template, slightly over use of divs, and no use of H P tags, etc

    What interest me what you are going to do with your Table template switch things on and off ?

    Here is my template? the 3 example looks similar as yours, it haze no content jet, the basic CSS file is very small and flexible

    http://www.rekkab.com/s/auto/3hf-big.htm

  10. #35
    CSS & JS/DOM Adept bronze trophy
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    5,482
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    You're missing the point.

    The point is not just to use <div>s instead of <table>s. The point is to use sematically correct markup and then change the way it looks (its presentation) with CSS.

    <div>s are semantically neutral, so they should be used when there isn't a block-level element that is semantically correct for whatever it is you are marking up.
    We miss you, Dan Schulz.
    Learn CSS. | X/HTML Validator | CSS validator
    Dynamic Site Solutions
    Code for Firefox, Chrome, Safari, & Opera, then add fixes for IE, not vice versa.

  11. #36
    SitePoint Zealot Rotwang's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Posts
    104
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Here's why I use tables instead of divs:

    http://groups.google.com/group/netsc...cede7f4a3b5b08

    CSS doesn't work right. And it's not the browsers' faults. It's A) the spec. and B) the people who think that CSS is great the way it is.

    Tables work better. That's that with that.

  12. #37
    ☆★☆★ silver trophy vgarcia's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    in transition
    Posts
    21,236
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Rotwang
    Here's why I use tables instead of divs:

    http://groups.google.com/group/netsc...cede7f4a3b5b08

    CSS doesn't work right. And it's not the browsers' faults. It's A) the spec. and B) the people who think that CSS is great the way it is.

    Tables work better. That's that with that.
    The CSS 1 spec has said that padding and borders are added to an element's width since its inception. Other browsers did things differently before they started adhering to the spec, which is the problem.

    I will give you that some recommendations put forth weren't completely thought out (parts of CSS 2.0 come to mind), but that link was a pretty lame example and one that's really easy to avoid.

    PS: Before anyone says "IE's box model makes more sense", how would the IE box model work with images? It would shrink them down and possibly distort them. I'm pretty sure that's why the CSS box model works the way it does.

  13. #38
    SitePoint Zealot Rotwang's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Posts
    104
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Easy to avoid?? How?

    And btw, there are two entries in firefox's bugzilla for that bug, and they've been marked "not a bug" with the explanation from the admins that the CSS spec specifies that, and firefox is simply adhering to the spec.

    This is not a minor bug, I've run into this every single time I've tried to design a site with divs instead of tables. EVERY TIME. No more divs for me, except in rare cases.

    Whenever the div-table debate crops up, the CSS snobs always say that the table guys just "don't know how or don't understand CSS". No. CSS is broken. That's why I love that example.

  14. #39
    SitePoint Enthusiast
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    32
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    The easy solution to this is to simply have different settings for IE and other browsers.

    You can use the *html syntax or you can precede your settings with an "_" - both will enable you to act differently in the case of IE than Firefox.

    Certainly not a reason to abandon CSS because Micro$oft can't adhere to the rules.

    Sean

  15. #40
    CSS & JS/DOM Adept bronze trophy
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    5,482
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    It's not broken. It's just not made to work in the most convenient way.

    The box model hacks work fine.

    I prefer this combination:
    http://www.dithered.com/css_filters/...mment_end.html
    http://www.dithered.com/css_filters/...star_html.html
    We miss you, Dan Schulz.
    Learn CSS. | X/HTML Validator | CSS validator
    Dynamic Site Solutions
    Code for Firefox, Chrome, Safari, & Opera, then add fixes for IE, not vice versa.

  16. #41
    Non-Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    4,300
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Rotwang
    Easy to avoid?? How?

    And btw, there are two entries in firefox's bugzilla for that bug, and they've been marked "not a bug" with the explanation from the admins that the CSS spec specifies that, and firefox is simply adhering to the spec.

    This is not a minor bug, I've run into this every single time I've tried to design a site with divs instead of tables. EVERY TIME. No more divs for me, except in rare cases.

    Whenever the div-table debate crops up, the CSS snobs always say that the table guys just "don't know how or don't understand CSS". No. CSS is broken. That's why I love that example.
    Hello

    100% width + 2x 10px padding= is a no fit (120% ?)
    280px + 2x10px=100% fits

    or use the happy box the auto-width

    block-level elements take up the width of there containers or screen and then can have a padding

    <table cellspacing="4" bgcolor="#ff3300" width="300"
    align="center" border="0"><tr><td><div
    style="background:#000000;padding:10px">wefw</div></td></tr*></table>


    Code:
    <!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Strict//EN" "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-strict.dtd">
    <html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml" xml:lang="en" lang="en">
    <head>
    <title>The Happy Problem con</title>
    	<style type="text/css" media="all">
    	html,body{/*html for FF Moz NS7 OP */
    	margin:0;/* no margins body */
    	padding:0;/* no padding body */
    	height:100%;
    	width:100%;
    	}
    	
    	.cf{background:#909090;}
    	
    	*{margin:0;padding:0;}
    	
    	/*body{font-size:1em;} weg */
    	
    	/* general */
    	div,p,span,b,a,pre,hr{
    	font-family: Verdana, Arial, Geneva, Helvetica, sans-serif;
    	/*font-size:.9em; weg */
    	color:#ffffff;
    	margin:0em;
    	padding:0em;
    	text-align:left;/* to get text back to the left*/
    	}
    	
    	div,p,span,b,a,pre,hr{
    	color:#000000;
    	}
    	
    	.con{
    	font-size:11px; 
    	background: #ffc;
    	border:20px solid #000000;
    	padding:30px;
    	}
    	
    	.con .cx{background:#cc9;padding:5px;}
    	
    	.w3,.w4 {width:300px; background:red;height:5px;overflow:hidden;text-align:left;}
    	.w4 {width:400px; background:blue;}
    	
    	.con h2{margin:0 0 10px 0;}
    	.con p{padding:0 0 10px 0;}
    	
    	.m{margin:0 0 0 100px;}
    	.mx{margin:0 100px 0 0;}
    	
    	.w{width:300px;}
    	.wb{width:400px;}
    	
    	</style>
    	<script type="text/javascript">
    
    	</script>
    </head>
    <body class="cf">
    
    <div>
    <h1>The Happy Box</h1>
    the auto width autowidth width width auto auto
    </div>
    
    <div class="w3">&nbsp;</div>
    <div class="w">
    <div class="con">
    <h2>contest</h2>
    <p>Here is a sample div with class "con".</p>
    <p>It has 20px border, 30px padding, and no width and no problems.</p>
    <p class="cx">
    .con{
    border:20px solid #000000;
    padding:30px;
    background: #ffc;
    }
    </p>
    </div>
    </div>
    
    <div class="w4">&nbsp;</div>
    <div class="wb">
    <div class="con">
    <h2>contest</h2>
    <p>Here is a sample div with class "con".</p>
    <p>It has 20px border, 30px padding, and no width and no problems.</p>
    <p class="cx">
    .con{
    border:20px solid #000000;
    padding:30px;
    background: #ffc;
    }
    </p>
    </div>
    </div>
    
    <div class="con m">
    <h2>contest</h2>
    <p>Here is a sample div with class "con".</p>
    <p>It has 20px border, 30px padding, and no width and no problems.</p>
    <p class="cx">
    .con{
    border:20px solid #000000;
    padding:30px;
    background: #ffc;
    }
    </p>
    </div>
    
    <div class="con mx">
    <h2>contest</h2>
    <p>Here is a sample div with class "con".</p>
    <p>It has 20px border, 30px padding, and no width and no problems.</p>
    <p class="cx">
    .con{
    border:20px solid #000000;
    padding:30px;
    background: #ffc;
    }
    </p>
    </div>
    
    </body>
    </html>
    Last edited by all4nerds; Sep 14, 2005 at 07:52.

  17. #42
    SitePoint Wizard mPeror's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Saudi Arabia
    Posts
    1,725
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by MrLen
    YOU DON'T KNOW!
    You don't know either , so stop talking as if you're better than most of us.

    The CSS version is better than the Tables one , but it looks like you overused divs there. You also used font tags which shouldn't be used in semantic (x)HTML. You weren't aware of that ; therefore many people here are better than you in CSS layouts.

    Quote Originally Posted by Rotwang
    CSS doesn't work right. And it's not the browsers' faults. It's A) the spec. and B) the people who think that CSS is great the way it is.

    Tables work better. That's that with that.
    Even if some lame browsers like IE still have problems with CSS, in the near future you'll have to switch to CSS whether you like it or not.

    Quote Originally Posted by Rotwang
    Whenever the div-table debate crops up, the CSS snobs always say that the table guys just "don't know how or don't understand CSS". No. CSS is broken. That's why I love that example.
    stick to tables , please.

  18. #43
    ☆★☆★ silver trophy vgarcia's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    in transition
    Posts
    21,236
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Rotwang
    Easy to avoid?? How?
    HTML Code:
    <div class="outer">
    <p>Hello, this has padding!</p>
    </div>
    Code:
    .outer {
      width: 100%;
    }
    .outer p {
      margin: 0;
      padding: 10px;
    }
    There you go. No hacks, and works in every browser from IE5 on up. Wasn't that easy?

    When you read the CSS spec a little common sense can go a long way, rather than trying something you think will work and hoping it sticks, then blaming the spec if/when it doesn't work.

  19. #44
    SitePoint Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    2
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I have been using tables for two years now and I'm slowly getting myself updated with CSS and learning new things about it.I like using css cause it so diverse.CSS is awesome I find it very usefull in making web pages.I'm pushing myself to learn all I can bout CSS and working on learning about XHTML.
    Skills-HTML,CSS
    Software proficient:Dreamweaver MX

  20. #45
    [Biped] LJK's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    In My Jammies
    Posts
    761
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Hi -
    Just gotta say, dragonx thanks for your happy little post...a true break in this thread
    that's about worn out its welcome - again. ;-)

    El
    F-Fox 2.0 :: WIN :: el design :: US

  21. #46
    Non-Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2001
    Location
    Melbourne, Australia
    Posts
    455
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Learn all you want. It's not going to be very helpful to you.

    The best thing about using DIV's is that you can float them left or right in table cells or other divs, to cut down on the code. I wouldn't recommend making a whole site out of them Unless the site is all rows and has no columns, (unlikely). Then DIV's are perfect indeed.

    MrLeN

  22. #47
    SitePoint Wizard silver trophy someonewhois's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    6,364
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by MrLeN
    Learn all you want. It's not going to be very helpful to you.

    The best thing about using DIV's is that you can float them left or right in table cells or other divs, to cut down on the code. I wouldn't recommend making a whole site out of them Unless the site is all rows and has no columns, (unlikely). Then DIV's are perfect indeed.

    MrLeN
    You say that as if your statements are the de-facto standard, when in fact it's the complete opposite. You're promoting poor coding styles.

  23. #48
    Non-Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2001
    Location
    Melbourne, Australia
    Posts
    455
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I'm promoting what's most practical.

    MrLeN

  24. #49
    SitePoint Wizard silver trophy someonewhois's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    6,364
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    How is not using tables unpractical? All of my sites avoid tables (except for tabular content, of course), and I've had no issues really.

  25. #50
    Non-Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2001
    Location
    Melbourne, Australia
    Posts
    455
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    We're now on the second page of a thread which contains plenty of answers to that question.

    Also, check out my reply to this article. This very bias article will cause heaps of confusion for people who don't know what CSS does and how it can be used for tables "or" div's. This article makes out that CSS is only for Div's. I gave it the lowest rating.


    http://www.sitepoint.com/article/tables-vs-css

    It should be called Tables Vs Div's, not Tables Vs CSS. Even the title is very confusing and misleading. Any wonder we've got a net full of newbies using the term "Tables V's CSS". As soon as I see someone use that term, it shows me that they have no idea what they're talking about, but just know how to say the term "tables Vs CSS" and that apparently it's cool (they way to go) or something.

    MrLeN
    Last edited by MrLeN; Sep 17, 2005 at 09:11.


Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •