SitePoint Sponsor

User Tag List

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 26 to 39 of 39
  1. #26
    Your Lord and Master, Foamy gold trophy Hierophant's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 1999
    Location
    Lancaster, Ca. USA
    Posts
    12,305
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    As vBulletin 3.0 will be XHTML 1.0 Transitional Compliant with the ultimate goal to comply to XHTML 1.0 Strict, I hope to move this site to XHTML/CSS shortly there after. Already working on the means to do so...
    Wayne Luke
    ------------


  2. #27
    + platinum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2001
    Location
    Adelaide, Australia
    Posts
    6,441
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Hmmm.. sounds pretty spiffy

  3. #28
    SitePoint Wizard iTec's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2001
    Location
    Sydney, Australia
    Posts
    2,243
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Originally posted by pony
    What I mean is, in a future specification of XHTML how would you/could you enforce the correct use of tables within that spec.
    I think te key thing here is that once css matures, say css3/4 then there wont be a need to use tables, and if you have played with css based layouts at the moment then you have seen the advantages that allready exist. You would basically be doing yourself in by continuing to use them and that in it self is really enough punishment.

  4. #29
    Former Staff Member silver trophy Adam P.'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2001
    Location
    San Francisco
    Posts
    3,288
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I recently started a thread (http://www.sitepointforums.com/showt...threadid=67421) asking what I should do when coding a new site of mind. Like Mark, this a BIG project so I want to do it right. For the last couple days I've been leaning back and forth.

    If I go with tables, I'll know what I'm doing and therefore get it done faster. But if I go with CSS, I'll probably be learning a very valuable skill that will be necessary to know in the future.

    The only drawbacks that I've had with CSS layout is that all of the CSS layouts that I've seen have been quite boring. They're nice and organized, but usually just plain columns with solid backgrounds. ALA is a nice site, but a layout like that would never work for something like sitepoint.com. I saw the article where someone changed a SitePoint page into CSS layout and to be frank, the liquid layout looked quite bad. Which brings me to...

    the other drawback seems to be that CSS only works good with liquid layouts. I want to use a static layout on the site that I'm working on. Even if I did try to make a liquid layout, I never understand what percentages to use.
    SPF Mentor/Advisor 2001-2003
    SPF Designer of the Year 2002
    SPF Graphic Designer of the Year 2003
    AdamPolselli.com

  5. #30
    Your Lord and Master, Foamy gold trophy Hierophant's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 1999
    Location
    Lancaster, Ca. USA
    Posts
    12,305
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    A CSS-driven version of SitePoint: http://sitepoint.com/cssdesign/index.php

    This was discussed in th "HTML Utopia" series that was recently highlighted in the Design Theme Week on WebmasterBase.com.

    The second article - HTML Utopia: 2 deals with both liquid and absolutely positioned layouts as well.
    Last edited by Hierophant; Jul 10, 2002 at 09:22.
    Wayne Luke
    ------------


  6. #31
    Grumpy Mole Man Skunk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2001
    Location
    Lawrence, Kansas
    Posts
    2,067
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    swimm - I recommend trying both. If it's a really important project it may not be ideal for your first forray in to a new technology, but it's an ideal opportunity for you to learn about CSS positioning. Spend a day or two playing around with CSS, and if you aren't confident you can do the whole project in it by then use a table or two combined with some of the CSS knowledge you've picked up.

  7. #32
    SitePoint Wizard
    Join Date
    Jul 2001
    Location
    The Netherlands
    Posts
    2,617
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Originally posted by swimm5001
    I recently started a thread (http://www.sitepointforums.com/showt...threadid=67421) asking what I should do when coding a new site of mind. Like Mark, this a BIG project so I want to do it right. For the last couple days I've been leaning back and forth.

    If I go with tables, I'll know what I'm doing and therefore get it done faster. But if I go with CSS, I'll probably be learning a very valuable skill that will be necessary to know in the future.

    The only drawbacks that I've had with CSS layout is that all of the CSS layouts that I've seen have been quite boring. They're nice and organized, but usually just plain columns with solid backgrounds. ALA is a nice site, but a layout like that would never work for something like sitepoint.com. I saw the article where someone changed a SitePoint page into CSS layout and to be frank, the liquid layout looked quite bad. Which brings me to...

    the other drawback seems to be that CSS only works good with liquid layouts. I want to use a static layout on the site that I'm working on. Even if I did try to make a liquid layout, I never understand what percentages to use.
    I have been playing around with the code for that website, and you would need either tables nested three deep or a combo of tables and div's positioned with CSS. Both can be done, and I'd be happy to lend a hand if you need one .

    I am looking forward to seeing the forums and the main SitePoint website standards compliant.

    I have decided to go ahead an try everything with div's. I worked on a few projects with them before, and I have a fairly good understanding on how to position them. With that decision came the decision to drop NS4 support, I am going for Opera 5.0 and up, IE 5.0 and up and NS 6.0 and up as mentioned before. I am curious as to how this will work out .

  8. #33
    SitePoint Wizard iTec's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2001
    Location
    Sydney, Australia
    Posts
    2,243
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Originally posted by swimm5001
    the other drawback seems to be that CSS only works good with liquid layouts. I want to use a static layout on the site that I'm working on.
    The new pirated sites layout is static, attractive and 100% table free!

  9. #34
    will code HTML for food Michel V's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2000
    Location
    Corsica
    Posts
    552
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Originally posted by swimm5001
    the other drawback seems to be that CSS only works good with liquid layouts. I want to use a static layout on the site that I'm working on.
    IMHO & from my experience, CSS works even better with fixed layouts

  10. #35
    Former Staff Member silver trophy Adam P.'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2001
    Location
    San Francisco
    Posts
    3,288
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Thanks iTec and ShinMa - great to hear! I'm definitely thinking about going with all CSS. I think I would benefit in the future. Unfortunately it's going to set back my project, but that's alright. I want to do everything right.
    SPF Mentor/Advisor 2001-2003
    SPF Designer of the Year 2002
    SPF Graphic Designer of the Year 2003
    AdamPolselli.com

  11. #36
    SitePoint Enthusiast
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Posts
    52
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    To Table or Not To Table...

    True Confession: I'm still using tables. Reason? I'm in my rookie season of using CSS, and am still not proficient enough at it to say, "Adios, tables."

    Martha Retallick
    Grow your business with direct mail postcards!
    It's easy, affordable, and FUN! Learn how at:
    PostcardMarketingSecrets.com

  12. #37
    SitePoint Wizard iTec's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2001
    Location
    Sydney, Australia
    Posts
    2,243
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Re: To Table or Not To Table...

    Originally posted by ahtram
    True Confession: I'm still using tables. Reason? I'm in my rookie season of using CSS, and am still not proficient enough at it to say, "Adios, tables."
    ahh but that is when you should say adios tables. Learn by doing is one of the most effective ways of learning something and when you are trying to convert a site from tables to css you become addicted to it and will endeavour to absorb as much as you can, and you will see ways in wich css can benefit other areas of your site.

  13. #38
    SitePoint Enthusiast
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    50
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    CSS is not as limiting as many people believe. The problem is that it's a technology that is very much in its infancy. As it becomes more widely used, the variety of design implementations will also increase.

    There's very little you can't do with CSS. It just takes a little independent, creative thinking.

  14. #39
    SitePoint Wizard Ian Glass's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Location
    Beyond yonder
    Posts
    2,384
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Originally posted by iTec
    ahh but that is when you should say adios tables.
    You learn well grasshopper... :-D

    Just remember this one thing: it's not tables that are bad, but they're misuse. For instance, a remake of these very forums shouldn't be completely free of tables, as they're probably the best way of associating a post's content with the author and the authors' info.

    I dream of a day, myself, where tools can be not 'bad' or 'good,' but unique unto themselves in accomplishing an ends. :-)

    ~~Ian

    P.S. I tought Nick everything he knows. :-p

    P.P.S. The font tag is evil.


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
  •