SitePoint Sponsor

User Tag List

Page 4 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast
Results 76 to 100 of 135
  1. #76
    CSS & JS/DOM Adept bronze trophy
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    5,482
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Ainslie X11
    The most troubling situation I hit a few weeks back was when eBay informed one of my client's that 36 percent of it's traffic was from Legacy browsers... they're not encouraging tableless shopfronts at all and he freaked when I spec'd tableless css, so I had to pass on a 1k code because my workflow's changed so much I would have lost money trying to do it with tables.
    Which browsers are Legacy browsers? IE4, NS4 and older? IE5.x and older? IE6 and older?

    Why should webpages look the same in the newest browsers and in browsers that are 8 or more years old?
    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.

  2. #77
    ~unplugged Ainslie X11's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    Langley, Virginia
    Posts
    1,013
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I know - with some people it's not worth arguing.

    Legacy browsers are those which fail in their support for XML - I dont' have any prob's coding for 5+, but - the contract 'stipulated' NN4 and some other grannies, too grey for me and I didn't want to get in the middle of anything concerning a client and eBay.


    working hard is hard work

  3. #78
    SitePoint Wizard mPeror's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Saudi Arabia
    Posts
    1,724
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by MrLen
    Websites that use tables or tables and divs can be fully and totally controlled via CSS just as div websites can.
    You couldn't prove it.

    Quote Originally Posted by MrLen
    What you've asked me to do is not something you'd want to do if you're using tables anyway
    I thought you said "totally controlled via CSS just as div websites can"?

    Quote Originally Posted by MrLen
    I did it. ok, it looks stupid in firefox (doesn't surprise me). Don't get me started on FireFox (please).
    You keep proving that you don't know what you're talking about. IE is known of it's stupid bug. If it looks right in IE and looks broken in firefox , then IE is fooling you into thinking it's the one that get's it right. Haven't you heard of the 3 pixels jog and the other few IE bugs that give designers a nightmare?

    Quote Originally Posted by MrLen
    See the beauty of tables is that you don't HAVE to use CSS for positioning,
    But you still have to go through each single page in your site to modify the HTML code when you modify your layout

    Quote Originally Posted by MrLen
    because tables are so powerful that positioning is integrated.
    Positioning is not a "feature" in tables. You just use tables to position things.

    Quote Originally Posted by MrLen
    I know exactly how they work and what they're good for.
    no you don't

    Quote Originally Posted by MrLen
    However, not only do you still have to position the divs on the right spot in the HTML for it to work
    Even though i've always made CSS based layouts , but i've never spend time trying to decide where to position a DIV. How about you give an example?

    Quote Originally Posted by MrLen
    but what ever you've built pretty much has to stay that way.
    That's the beauty of it ! you built it right the first time , and you never have to touch it again.

    Quote Originally Posted by MrLen
    However, if you just use tables, You've got no problem. You can stretch and change things (width and height) with absolutely no problem.
    You don't know what you're talking about. You got a few problems with tables :
    1. You documents will consume more bandwidth since you use tons of table tags and attributes (<td><tr>...etc)
    2. Your site will be much harder to maintain from it's code.
    3. Redisigning or modifying the design requires going through every single file to change the HTML code.
    4. The code would be much less readable.

    can you prove the opposite?

    Quote Originally Posted by MrLen
    Yes W3C is wrong.
    ...

    Quote Originally Posted by MrLen
    Yeah, we all know that, but that's not what they're being used for
    Numerous criminals killed people using kitchen knives. Does that mean that kitchen knives were made for both cutting food and killing people?

    Quote Originally Posted by MrLen
    I hate to break it to W3C but tables are the most popular, highly integrated, multi-functional, cross browser friendly, backwards compatible, SIMPLE TO USE, search engine friendly, webmaster friendly attributes to web building online.
    most popular :
    Thansk to frontpage and dreamweaver. Also , Internet Explorer is the most popular browser , yet it's the worst major browser. So popularity here doesn't mean anything.

    highly integrated :
    which force you to change every single page when redesigning and modifying the layout. No thanks , i don't need integration.

    multi-functional :
    whatever..

    cross browser friendly and backwards compatible :
    true

    SIMPLE TO USE :
    not for hand coding designers. Only for those amatuers who use WYSIWYG editors.

    Quote Originally Posted by MrLen
    I know how to do it with divs, but it's too much hassle. Why do it with divs, when tables do it already?
    Why do you use the CSS hover effect when Javascript can do it already?

    Quote Originally Posted by MrLen
    Not only that, divs don't work properly (if at all) in many older browsers. There are still many Internet users with older browsers.
    In my opinion , support for old browser should be dropped. Those users with older browsers won't change if we keep spending time trying to make our site's compatible to their crappy browsers. We have to force the change.

    Quote Originally Posted by MrLen
    "You've used TABLES!" - "Hahaha!" - "Look, everyone, he's used TABLES!"
    Apparently , these people pissed you off , which could be the reason for bashing CSS layouts.

    Quote Originally Posted by MrLen
    Really.. Is this the future of the web?
    No. Frontpage is.

  4. #79
    CSS & JS/DOM Adept bronze trophy
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    5,482
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Ainslie X11
    I know - with some people it's not worth arguing.

    Legacy browsers are those which fail in their support for XML - I dont' have any prob's coding for 5+, but - the contract 'stipulated' NN4 and some other grannies, too grey for me and I didn't want to get in the middle of anything concerning a client and eBay.
    Hmm... What does XML have to do with it? Do you mean XMLHTTPRequest (AJAX)?
    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.

  5. #80
    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 Kravvitz
    Hmm... What does XML have to do with it? Do you mean XMLHTTPRequest (AJAX)?
    Off Topic:

    To go along with your signature's syntax, XMLHTTPRequest != AJAX.

  6. #81
    ~unplugged Ainslie X11's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    Langley, Virginia
    Posts
    1,013
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Kravvitz
    Hmm... What does XML have to do with it? Do you mean XMLHTTPRequest (AJAX)?
    No, I think eBay used a trendy word to describe the old browsers that they apparently love so much - I think they'd spin all kinds of s#^t in order to prevent anything tableless happening at someone's storefront.


    working hard is hard work

  7. #82
    CSS & JS/DOM Adept bronze trophy
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    5,482
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Hmm... Aren't large corporations that throw their weight around annoying?

    Quote Originally Posted by someonewhois
    Off Topic:

    To go along with your signature's syntax, XMLHTTPRequest != AJAX.
    XMLHTTPRequest is used in non-IE browsers to do AJAX, right?
    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.

  8. #83
    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 Kravvitz
    XMLHTTPRequest is used in non-IE browsers to do AJAX, right?
    Off Topic:

    Yeah, so that means AJAX is one of the uses of XMLHTTPRequest. It's not the only one. Therefore, AJAX != XMLHTTPRequest. SitePoint has a domain listings forum, does that mean SitePoint=Domain Broker? No.

  9. #84
    SitePoint Enthusiast nemein's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    28
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by mPeror
    You couldn't prove it.

    I thought you said "totally controlled via CSS just as div websites can"?

    You keep proving that you don't know what you're talking about. IE is known of it's stupid bug. If it looks right in IE and looks broken in firefox , then IE is fooling you into thinking it's the one that get's it right. Haven't you heard of the 3 pixels jog and the other few IE bugs that give designers a nightmare?

    But you still have to go through each single page in your site to modify the HTML code when you modify your layout

    Positioning is not a "feature" in tables. You just use tables to position things.

    no you don't

    Even though i've always made CSS based layouts , but i've never spend time trying to decide where to position a DIV. How about you give an example?

    That's the beauty of it ! you built it right the first time , and you never have to touch it again.

    You don't know what you're talking about. You got a few problems with tables :
    1. You documents will consume more bandwidth since you use tons of table tags and attributes (<td><tr>...etc)
    2. Your site will be much harder to maintain from it's code.
    3. Redisigning or modifying the design requires going through every single file to change the HTML code.
    4. The code would be much less readable.

    can you prove the opposite?

    ...

    Numerous criminals killed people using kitchen knives. Does that mean that kitchen knives were made for both cutting food and killing people?


    most popular :
    Thansk to frontpage and dreamweaver. Also , Internet Explorer is the most popular browser , yet it's the worst major browser. So popularity here doesn't mean anything.

    highly integrated :
    which force you to change every single page when redesigning and modifying the layout. No thanks , i don't need integration.

    multi-functional :
    whatever..

    cross browser friendly and backwards compatible :
    true

    SIMPLE TO USE :
    not for hand coding designers. Only for those amatuers who use WYSIWYG editors.

    Why do you use the CSS hover effect when Javascript can do it already?

    In my opinion , support for old browser should be dropped. Those users with older browsers won't change if we keep spending time trying to make our site's compatible to their crappy browsers. We have to force the change.

    Apparently , these people pissed you off , which could be the reason for bashing CSS layouts.

    No. Frontpage is.
    I applaud to you sir, that was a good read and point well made. This is pretty interesting discussion that's going on, let's keep it going

  10. #85
    SitePoint Zealot Rotwang's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Posts
    104
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by vgarcia
    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.
    Oh yea, that was easy alright. Except when your table cell has more than one paragraph of text in it.

    HTML Code:
    <p>paragraph 1</p>
    <p>paragraph 2</p>
    Then your 10px padding becomes an extra 20px gap between each paragraph, in addition to the normal line break from a <p>. And god forbid you want 20px of padding, then you'll have a 40px gap plus the normal line break. Your paragraphs will be so far apart, your readers might forget when the first paragraph said by the time they get to the second.

    You've exemplified my whole point about CSS- the people on the CSS side think it's not broken. That is the real reason to stick to tables.

  11. #86
    Non-Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    4,300
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Hello

    Hallelujah come again,

    padding stays the same ?, or do we not understand some basic html ? positioning by padding or margin's ?

    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>12345 12345 12345 12345 12345 </title>
    	<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1" />
    	<style type="text/css">
    .outer {
    background:#ffffcc;
      width: 100%;
    }
    .outer p {
      margin: 0;
      padding:0 30px 0 30px;;
    }
    	</style>
    	<script type="text/javascript">
    
    	</script>
    </head>
    
    <body>
    <div class="outer">
    <p>Hello, this has padding!</p>
    <p>Hello, this has padding!</p>
    <p>Hello, this has padding!</p>
    <p>Hello, this has padding!</p>
    </div>
    <p></p>
    <table width="100%" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="outer">
    <tr>
    	<td><p>Hello, this has padding!</p>
    <p>Hello, this has padding!</p>
    <p>Hello, this has padding!</p>
    <p>Hello, this has padding!</p></td>
    </tr>
    </table>
    </body>
    </html>
    Last edited by all4nerds; Sep 26, 2005 at 11:38.

  12. #87
    SitePoint Zealot Rotwang's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Posts
    104
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by all4nerds
    Hello

    Hallelujah come again,

    padding stays the same ?, or do we not understand some basic html ? positioning by padding or margin's ?
    Your example conveniently neglects to add padding to the top and bottom of the cell, as in cellpadding="4". (Or style="padding:4px"). In order to do so, you'll have to add padding in the first and last <p> elements. Oh sure, it's possible, and it'll work well enough. But at that point, the whole argument for divs being simpler that tables is in jeopardy. My app code would have to take into account whether it's writing the first paragraph's html, a middle paragraph's html, or the last paragraph's html. Further, if I have an image appear first in the cell instead of a <p>, then I have to add the custom padding to the image instead. Or any other element. What I could so easily do with a table, cellpadding="4" becomes a headache in divs.

    CSS/divs are seductive. They seem elegant and simple until you actually build a real site with them. A real site. Not an outline or a skeleton.

    And for those of you joining this late, see my original post on this problem with divs in the CSS spec here:

    http://www.sitepoint.com/forums/show...4&postcount=36

  13. #88
    CSS & JS/DOM Adept bronze trophy
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    5,482
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Someone should close this thread. It's not going anywhere.

    Why do you care if I follow the W3C's recommendations or not?

    Edit: Here's a thought: X/HTML layouts should not be one-size-fits-all -- the markup should give meaning to the text, images, etc. on the page.
    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.

  14. #89
    The CSS Clinic is open silver trophybronze trophy
    Paul O'B's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Hampshire UK
    Posts
    40,556
    Mentioned
    183 Post(s)
    Tagged
    6 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Kravvitz
    Someone should close this thread. It's not going anywhere.
    I said that right at the beginning lol

    I've never heard so much ill informed rubbish spoken by people who do not understand the simplest concepts of css or table design.

    Quote Originally Posted by Rotwang
    What I could so easily do with a table, cellpadding="4" becomes a headache in divs.
    Now let me think very hard ............... Hmm div {padding:4px}

    If you have paragraphs inside a table cell then there's very little difference to paragraphs inside a div. Unless of course you are coding badly and un-semantically by using bare text and breaks to style your content. You can apply margins or paragraphs to the p tags or you can just apply margins knowing that adjacent vertical margins collapse which will give you consistent spacing.

    Unless this thread improves in content and explanation then I will close it as it simply becomes table bashing or css bashing and is no help to anyone. I don't care which side of the fence you are arguing for but please present your arguments in a logical and constructive way that will make both sides sit up and think

  15. #90
    ☆★☆★ silver trophy vgarcia's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    in transition
    Posts
    21,235
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Rotwang
    Oh yea, that was easy alright. Except when your table cell has more than one paragraph of text in it.

    HTML Code:
    <p>paragraph 1</p>
    <p>paragraph 2</p>
    Then your 10px padding becomes an extra 20px gap between each paragraph, in addition to the normal line break from a <p>. And god forbid you want 20px of padding, then you'll have a 40px gap plus the normal line break. Your paragraphs will be so far apart, your readers might forget when the first paragraph said by the time they get to the second.

    You've exemplified my whole point about CSS- the people on the CSS side think it's not broken. That is the real reason to stick to tables.
    Okay then:
    Code:
    #outer {
      width: 500px;
    }
    #outer p {
      margin: 10px 0;
      padding: 0 10px;
    }
    10 pixels padding on the left and right, 10 pixels margin on top and bottom. Margins collapse so you only have 10px between each paragraph.

    If you want a special case for other paragraphs, give them a class or ID.

    CSS isn't hard and if you use some common sense you can get a lot done. But feel free to keep hiding behind tables if it makes you feel better.

  16. #91
    SitePoint Zealot Rotwang's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Posts
    104
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Paul O'B

    Now let me think very hard ............... Hmm div {padding:4px}
    Unless this thread improves in content and explanation then I will close it as it simply becomes table bashing or css bashing and is no help to anyone. I don't care which side of the fence you are arguing for but please present your arguments in a logical and constructive way that will make both sides sit up and think

    What irony that the same guy who said the first quote also said the second quote, in the same thread. And further, he completely ignored this part of my post that he was responding to:

    And for those of you joining this late, see my original post on this problem with divs in the CSS spec here:

    http://www.sitepoint.com/forums/show...4&postcount=36
    You gotta love a moderator who closes a thread he hasn't really read.

  17. #92
    The CSS Clinic is open silver trophybronze trophy
    Paul O'B's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Hampshire UK
    Posts
    40,556
    Mentioned
    183 Post(s)
    Tagged
    6 Thread(s)
    You gotta love a moderator who closes a thread he hasn't really read.
    Yes I read your posts and my comments still stand I'm afraid. I seem to be missing your point about the padding in a table cell or a div so I apologise if my answer seem too simplistic.

    This is exactly the reason that this thread is going nowhere,

    And yes you are right they do all love me

  18. #93
    SitePoint Wizard megamanXplosion's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Kentucky, USA
    Posts
    1,099
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    It is often stated online that tables were not originally meant to be used for any reason other to present information in a tabular format. This sounds good, and knowledgeable. But in reality the statement presents no real significance or basis for argument.
    The person inside W3C who suggested implementing tables in the HTML specification has been quoted as saying "it looks like I broke the web" once people began using tables to present information they weren't created to present. I believe this is a good starting point, or basis, for argument.

    The cart was originally designed to transport people and heavy or bulk quantities of items. At first they were pulled or pushed by hand. Then we tied them to horses. But these days we put engines in the and the possibilities are almost boundless. So although the cart was originally designed to perform a simple function, their use and development has exceeded those functions exponentially. It's the same thing with tables.
    As you can clearly see, the "carts" themselves were actually changed to adapt to their growing amount of uses. Tables have not adapted, they were created for the same purpose they are meant to serve today. Their misuse is the only thing exceeding exponentially.

    Tables hurt the usage of alternative browsing devices and software when they are not used properly. Tables often have a quirky ordering of content within the source code that makes it near impossible for screen readers to accurately relay the information in a coherent manner to the user with visual disabilities. This same quirky ordering of content hurts users of braille display devices. Tables, when used improperly, also force elements of a page to not collapse if there is not enough space so users of small-screen devices like PDAs and Cellphones have to constantly scroll to read information, it makes it harder to create printer-friendly designs, they unnecessarily bloat the HTML code, they become a maintenance nightmare for redesigns on large web sites, and they have built-in rendering delays in browsers (ever notice how the logo of a site would show up then wait for a couple of seconds and ALL of the left navigation shows up at once instead of continually rendering to the screen and being presented to the user as quick as possible?)

    They were originally designed to fulfil a simple purpose, but that was in the past. Tables are more now. Tables are no longer limited to that simple function, and they are probably the most widely accepted and supported function of web development online today.
    Like mentioned earlier, their purpose is still the same. The W3C have clearly recommended against using tables when the information is not tabular data. The W3C does not give such clarifications on other features of HTML because no other feature is as misused as tables.

    Browser developers have taken considerable time and effort and gone to extraordinary lengths to bring the functionalities to tables, as they exist today, to increase their function, making them far more useful than for merely presenting tabular information.
    Browser developers have taken considerable time writing the HTML specifications (that's right: W3C is not a bunch of nobodies but are the most important somebodies you could listen to) and used that time to recommend against the improper uses of tables.

    But what developers need from CSS is fellowship - not dictation. A DIV layout can be totally crippled without its CSS compatriot.
    CSS does provide fellowship. Most layouts that use DIVs for their correct purpose can usually survive in a readable format without CSS. If the user does not have CSS enabled then it is for very important reasons: they want to conserve on bandwidth (tables are not a solution), they have visual impairments and would prefer the browser to handle the rendering (tables are not a solution), their devices do not have enough processing power to handle presentational aspects effeciently (tables are not a solution), or their browser/device does not understand CSS (in which case most sites are totally broken for them and a plain working document is better than what most web sites give them.) This is called backwards compatibility and device independence; they are good things.

    Now, to this point, I haven't included the main reason why I am using tables in my design. So far I have only offered my opinion on the DIV vs. TABLE argument, to give a lead up towards what I will begin to explain now. In the template that this thread concerns, I have used a table layout for many, many reason. All of these reasons have been included into my design with careful consideration. I build a lot of websites, and I really don't have the time to code each one from scratch, every single time. So what I have set about to do is to create a generic template system for myself, that can be expanded, stretched, altered and modified in as many ways as possible, without the need to edit any HTML or XHTML. What I need is to be able to contort the web page in basically every possible way that I can think of. And with the design that I have presented above, I can mimic pretty much any other website design online, merely by altering the CSS via a config.php file.

    The template in concern has Top Bar, Top Menu, Header, Header Advertising area, Location Bar, Content Area, Left and Right menu's as well as a footer. Also, within each table cell, I have certain DIV's which will allow me to add further sections within the template, such as a header left and a header right. Footer 1, 2 and 3, for three sets of links or includes in the footer. I can turn all or any of it off with the CSS.

    Apart from all that, I also have several stylesheets. I can adjust the template in a php.config file, which tells the page what stylesheet to use, or I can point an individual page to a different stylesheet. I can turn any section of the website on or of at will, with one change, and no matter what I do it will always render and function perfectly in all browsers. Apart from that, I also have a single setting to change whether I want the page to stretch to fit the browser screen, or to be say: 770px wide and centred. The template wraps to the browser height as well, for pages that do not have much content. There's nothing that I haven't thought of. There's absolutely nothing I cannot do with this template.

    These are things that I need that a DIV layout simply cannot provide. I don't care who reads this article, from any part of the world, with any amount of coding experience. The functionality that I have built into the website above cannot be done with a DIV layout. It is absolutely, completely and utterly impossible.
    Semantic layouts can do everything you mentioned.

  19. #94
    SitePoint Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    1
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Hi All,

    This is my first post on this forum and the only reason I came accross this thread is because I was searching for the pros & cons between <DIV> and <TABLE> after having my CSS slated to heck which made me question my rather unorthodox method of using CSS with TABLES to achieve the desired result while developing a site. So I'm sorry for bringing this back to the top after so many months!

    Now I don't proclaim for a minute to be any kind of guru here and by all means from reading this post, most of you have a vastly more knowledge than I do but I thought I had to say this.

    As I have been reading through this thread, I have come to the realisation that maybe I actually understand this more than I originally thought. Personally, I can see MrLen's point and understand what he is trying to achieve here and I do commend him for at least trying to do this so I don't think we should be flaming anyone (and that goes both ways). That said however, it suddenly occurred to me that the solution MrLen is looking for is actually staring him right in the face. I'm not trying to be nasty here or anything but when I had a look at the source for the page, I was a little disapointed by the lack of flexabiltity and that's when it hit me....

    The best way to achieve full flexabiltiy is by using a combination of micro-files, PHP and CSS. That way the site can be made completely dynamic in that basically all you have to do is change the content and mess around with some of the CSS and PHP to completely re-design the look of the site. If any of you have used open source PHP like osCommerce for example, you can see the start of this here, it just needs to be built on.

    Therefore, to sit on the fence a little, it doesn't really matter wether you use <DIV> or <TABLE> but then it comes down to which is best and that's where CSS would win due to page weight only. I really don't see anything (but I could be wrong) that can be achieved by tables that can not be acheived by a lighter div. Maybe, I've got it all wrong but this is how I see it. Eitherway, it would be good to get a few heads together to work ot the best way of doing this rather than several differnet people all working on different ways to do it then arguing what's best!

    <disclaimer>
    This post is based purely on my observation and understanding. No claim is being made of being right, only of being open to suggestion or correction!
    </disclaimer>

  20. #95
    Non-Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2001
    Location
    Melbourne, Australia
    Posts
    455
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Hi mate,

    This post is so old, that I really can't even remember what I wrote. However, yeah -- I think the best bet is; just use what works. These days I am inclined to use tables and divs. I certainly don't use JUST divs because so and so says I am supposed to. There are still a heap of things that tables do that divs just plain can't and never will be able to do.

    I have a very comfortable style of coding these days. I generally use tables as a site frame, and then I use divs for carious boxes and areas within that frame. This method works wonders for me.

    If the site is only small -- having just a header, content and footer, I'll just use divs.

    MrLeN

  21. #96
    [Biped] LJK's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    In My Jammies
    Posts
    761
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Off Topic:

    As long as you can afford the surgery for carpo-tunnel syndrome, have at it! ;-)
    F-Fox 2.0 :: WIN :: el design :: US

  22. #97
    SitePoint Author silver trophybronze trophy

    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Ankh-Morpork
    Posts
    12,158
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by BYGino
    I was searching for the pros & cons between <DIV> and <TABLE>
    The premise of your search is wrong to begin with. Replacing semantically incorrect TABLEs with unsemantic DIVs isn't helping anyone. What you should replace your layout tables with is semantic markup. Use the available element types in HTML, not just DIVs.

    Then separate all presentation (CSS) and behaviour (JavaScript) from the markup, and you'll have a site that is far easier to maintain.
    Birnam wood is come to Dunsinane

  23. #98
    Guru Meditation Error gnarly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    Cheltenham, United Kingdom
    Posts
    692
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    There are still a heap of things that tables do that divs just plain can't and never will be able to do.
    You've mentioned this and improved functionality several times over the course of the thread. Can you give some examples (bearing in mind that CSS display:table; knocks out the "never will be able to do" part)? And by functionality, I assume you mean actual functionality, not visual layout tricks.
    Olly Hodgson
    thinkdrastic.net

  24. #99
    Non-Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2001
    Location
    Melbourne, Australia
    Posts
    455
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    The two main things that tables are useful for is 100% height, as well as columned layouts -- both of which are painful to accomplish with divs.

    If I want to create a page, template or website with columns, it's just plain out simple by using tables. If I want to use divs it just turns into a nightmare.

    What I can't get over is people trying to say that divs and tables can't perform the same function -- They can, for the most part - except they also have their own extra uses and strengths.

    If I want to create a template that uses floating and absolutely positioned containers, and if I'm not much into columns and if I don't want or need to specify 100% heights for those containers, then divs are fantastic.

    But the fact of the matter is that most people don't want to create CSS origami. All they want is a content area divided into a couple of columns. They often want to specify 100% height, and they often want the columns to fill the height of the page or template or the container that they're in. Doing such things with divs causes nothing but grief, and they will NEVER improve because to omplement such functionality into divs would make them .. "tables".

    I am sick and tired of people comparing divs and tables and saying that tables are not for layout, period -- when they bloody well are. They're "perfect" for many layouts, and even more perfect and simple than using divs by 200%

    Yes, tables were originally created to display tabular data. But things evolved, as they do, and tables became a legitimate layout tool by proxy.

    I have seen many people create what can only be described as an eccentric design with divs, and they proclaim: "Ha - Ha-Ha! You can't do {{{THAT}}} with tables!" I just shake my head. If I want to do "that", I'll just use divs -- duh.

    But everyone's gotta get of this "tables are evil" bandwagon, and the "if you use them besides for tabular data, then you're a loser" phylosophy. The fact of the matter is that tables have evolved into a very useful, legitimate, easy to use method of design. Many people still use them, and will likely never stop using them. If the latest browsers dropped all the functionality that's been programmed for making tables useful for design, as opposed to just tabular data, then 90% of the sites online wouldn't work. That includes pretty much all forum software too, which use tables almost exclusively.

    In my mind a table is just the same thing as a div, except you can add columns. You can use them exactly the same way. You can control the background colors, background images, width, height, borders and everything just as you can with a div - EXCEPT you can also do a multitude of other things that divs can't.

    My view is that the term "CSS layout" should not automatically imply the use of "divs" because sites can be totally configured with CSS without the use of even one div. The term "CSS layout" is used all wrong - all over the internet. The term should be replaced with "div layout", or "table layout" -- both of which can be adjusted in their own ways and with their own attributes via CSS.

    I feel like I am in the twilight zone. Most people just go with the flow and follow what everyone else says. I find it very hard to get anyone to say: "You know what? You're right". But I'll keep arguing until I am blue in the face. If you ask me it's all the W3C's fault -- a useless and bureaucratic dictatorship if I ever saw one.

    - Tables are tables
    - Divs are divs
    - CSS is CSS
    - CSS can be used to manipulate table layouts
    - CSS can be used to manipulate div layouts
    - CSS can be used to manipulate div and table layouts

    The difference between a div layout and a table layout is that a div layout is more useful for floating and absolutely positioning, and a table layout is useful to keep a template simple and functional with multiple columns and 100% heights, without having to spend 3 hours fiddling with CSS to do the same thin on a div layout -- because over the last decade most of what people try to do with a div layout has already been programmed into tables, making development and design much easier.

    Also, fantastic websites can be built by using tables "and" divs, while being controlled via CSS. That's just the way it is. That's the way the things have developed. That's reality. Standards are "what works", not what some dork says should work after the fact. Standards are what is developed on the cutting edge. Standards are what everyone uses. Standards are being created "right now" in various areas of IT, where companies need functionality that hasn't been invented yet, and they ahve to create the technology themselves. THAT is the standard -- not what some dork finally comes up with 5 years later, saying that it's better.

    The pros and cons between divs and tables are very simple. If you want to create CSS origami, use divs. If you want to create a website in a columned layout, use tables. If you want to do both, use both. But on thing is a fact -- regardless of WHO says so, tables are not just for tabular data. Also, they're not going anywhere. They are a legitimate design method.

    MrLeN

  25. #100
    SitePoint Wizard bronze trophy Tyssen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Brisbane, QLD
    Posts
    4,067
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by MrLeN
    Standards are "what works", not what some dork says should work after the fact. Standards are what is developed on the cutting edge. Standards are what everyone uses. Standards are being created "right now" in various areas of IT, where companies need functionality that hasn't been invented yet, and they ahve to create the technology themselves. THAT is the standard -- not what some dork finally comes up with 5 years later, saying that it's better.
    Look at any other industry that has standards - are the standards made up on the fly by whoever, whenever they feel it suits them? No, of course, they're not. A standard is an official, codified set of rules that organisations abide by if they want it to be known that they follow that standard.
    If you don't want to be known as a follower of standards, that's fine, and in the web development industry it's probably less important than it is in something like manufacturing or pharmaceuticals, but you can't go around making up your own rules and saying that's what a standard is because that's not the way it works.


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
  •