CSS is just bling. Just kidding. Any time CSS is involved it becomes more complicated. It gets old after a while.
Tabular data is anything that has two columns. The definition doesn’t include a minimum height.
No, tabular data is data in columns which have some kind of relationship. I can list random words in two columns, but that does not make it a table of data. A table would be, for example, three columns with headings “Book title”, “Author”, “Publication date”. Each column holds the same type of information, and each row has three entries which are related to each other. Hence the need for correct HTML structure for such tables, to enable search engines, screen readers, etc., to interpret the data and the relationships correctly.
Putting unrelated data into a table is a misuse of the table element, which is why the CSS display:table exists, to allow the simulation of a table layout without destroying the semantic structure of the HTML.
4 Likes
You still seem to be missing the point.
Html is the structure and you can style it with as much or as little css as you require depending on how you want it to look. There’s no need for fancy styling if you just want something basic and don’t care how it looks. Indeed good structured html stands very well on its own without the need for copious styling.
CSS does contain a lot of properties and does require some learning to use properly but at its basic level it’s not that complicated.
HTML also needs to be learned properly and you seem to be at a very early stage with your understanding of HTML and therefore are making wrong assumptions and choices. Html is not that complicated but it does have a set of rules that need to be followed and set of semantics that need to be upheld.
As I said before you are free to ignore all this and party like its 1999 but that doesn’t make it right.
If you are just designing a page for yourself with no intention of letting others see your page and are not interested in learning the proper skills then you can basically do what you like; it doesn’t really matter. If on the other hand you are trying to learn web design and show professional skills then there are no short cuts. There is a learning curve that requires time and effort just as there is with any skilled job.
Another vague statement that means nothing without context:)
Everything gets old!
I’m very old but that doesn’t make me useless (although my wife might argue to differ)
6 Likes
My last code works pretty well and it uses simple CSS. I didn’t use “box-sizing: border-box”, and “*, *::before, *::after`” as was first used above.". Tell me that’s not more compicated. Coot’s last code is the simplicity I was looking for.to solve the simple problem I had. I rarely program. If I programmed all the time, I’d have an easier time with it. But for my needs I usually can recognize when code is more complex than it needs to be.
Thanks,
Chris
Just be aware, if it has not sunk in yet. The example in post #13 has simpler css because, the html is being used to force a layout, not the css.
It is taking that complexity out from the css, and putting it back into the html. Which as explained many times, is wrong.
HTML should define the structure of the document (don’t confuse structure with layout).
CSS defines the look, and layout is a part of that.
Probably the truest thing you have said. 
CSS is all about image, not about substance, content or structure.
No. The document structure is CSS agnostic, that is the point being put across. The document stucture as defined by the HTML, is what it is, no amount of CSS will change that structure, it only changes what it looks like in the browser window. To a screen reader, a search bot, or someone viewing the source, it’s the same HTML. That is why the HTML should define what the content is and represents by choosing appropriate elements to describe it. Never choose elements for how they look, but for their sematic meaning. If the appropriate element for your content doesn’t look the way you want it to, then use CSS to change that.
As Paul explained in post #11, these were never necassary to acheive the layout while maintaining correct semantic structure.
I thought that was out of character for you. 
3 Likes
So if the first code is unnessesarily complicated and the last is too HTML laden, that would make my code above just right, less the multiple CSS references that should have been in the table set up code.
<style type="text/css">
.alygn{text-align:left}
.wydth{width:800px}
.brdr{border-width:1px;border-style:solid}
</style>
</head>
<body>
<table class="wydth">
<tr class="alygn">
<th class="brdr">Thiamin</th>
<th class="brdr">Niacin</th>
<th class="brdr">Potassium</th>
</tr>
<tr class="alygn">
<th class="brdr">Magnesium</th>
<th class="brdr">Choline</th>
<th class="brdr">* * B-6</th>
</tr>
</table>
</body>That last example is still wrong on so many levels but it seems you are set on ignoring sound advice so it would be futile for us to go over the same issues yet again.
Therefore I’ll withdraw from the thread and wish you well with your endeavor.
3 Likes
This topic was automatically closed 91 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.