should I go back to tables in HTML instead of CSS?

On Sat, 13 May 2006 02:17:27 -0400 Neredbojias <http://www.neredbojias.com/fliam.php?cat=alt.html> wrote:

To further the education of mankind, phil-news-nospam (AT) ipal (DOT) net
vouchsafed:

On Fri, 12 May 2006 22:43:50 +0200 Johannes Koch
koch (AT) w3development (DOT) de> wrote:
| phil-news-nospam (AT) ipal (DOT) net wrote:
|> So basically, screw the regular visual user with a lousy
|> presentation so the other class of users get something they like.
|
| It's not table layout vs. lousy presentation. Many web developers use
| visually attractive table-less layouts nowadays, that do adapt to
| various browsing situations, better than table layouts can.

Show me some. But not simplistic blog pages. Show me one that looks
like CraigsList.Org but uses no tables ... and works in IE, too.

If you're talking about the home page, what's so difficult about that? A
bunch of emed-width and absolutely-positioned divs would do it.

Absolutely positioned? That's liable to break pretty badly. Sure, you
can make it track font size with emed-width (and perhaps height, too).
But how well will the layout hold with window sizes?

I'm not saying it can't be done. I'm saying it will be full of glitches
and be very hard to keep stable. Until I see someone actually achieve it
without any issues, I'm certainly NOT going to attempt it myself.

TABLES for me because ... THEY WORK.

--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Phil Howard KA9WGN | http://linuxhomepage.com/ http://ham.org/ |
(first name) at ipal.net | http://phil.ipal.org/ http://ka9wgn.ham.org/ |
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

On Sat, 13 May 2006 21:01:39 -0400 Neredbojias <http://www.neredbojias.com/fliam.php?cat=alt.html> wrote:

I guess css border-radius is in the offing for css3. However, graphic
refinements like anti-aliasing may be a while in coming considering that
most browsers (-Opera is a noted exception) don't even bother to resample
images when resizing them. (The old argument that it takes too much
resources/time is no longer valid and hasn't been for years [unless you
have a crappy browser to begin with].)

Even so, there is the option to just do a rough rescale first and follow
that up with a clean resample. You just see the screen get better in
however much time your computer takes (and if your computer is too fast,
you miss the experience :-)

Another improvement would be multiple borders. I can do that with
images and tables (oh, people will definitely hate it). Wouldn't it
be better to allow that in CSS? Or would you want to exclude it from
CSS because it is so ugly (see the last box in the following page)?

http://phil.ipal.org/usenet/ciwas/2006-05-11/rbox.html

As I said, expand the css border attributes. Btw, I made a multiple-border
image like that one once, too, with nested divs, and it looked just as
ugly.

I'd like to see an easier way to do the drop shadow effect. Expanding on
the border features might well work, but there would be a lot of detail to
add to it to do stuff like shadows.

FYI, I just deployed the redesign for http://linuxhomepage.com/ ... not yet
all of what I want to do to change it, but a lot is done and it comes out OK
on Firefox (no idea about MS IE, but this site isn't one I worry much about
IE for).

--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Phil Howard KA9WGN | http://linuxhomepage.com/ http://ham.org/ |
(first name) at ipal.net | http://phil.ipal.org/ http://ka9wgn.ham.org/ |
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

JRS: In article <e43o4s22tmi (AT) news3 (DOT) newsguy.com>, dated Sat, 13 May 2006
04:43:08 remote, seen in news:comp.infosystems.www.authoring.stylesheets
, phil-news-nospam (AT) ipal (DOT) net posted :

Then I think they should add this capability in another form, to CSS3,
so that we have a means to do the layouts in a way that works like that
of tables. Ironically, whatever it would be called, it would just be a
duplication of tables; implementation would be to alias a new name to
the existing tables capability. So then what is the gain?

Web pages are intended, on the whole, to be read as displayed by
browsers. Only the authors/maintainers need to read the source code.

So, where you have truly tabular material, use <TABLE> <TBODY> <TR> <TH>
<TD>; where you have material most readily or suitably laid out with CSS
boxes, use CSS boxes.

And where you have non-tabular material best laid out on a grid, use
<GRID> <GBODY> <GR> <GH> <GD> for your authoring; and run a pre-
processor to convert those G characters to T characters.

Now you have, as author/maintainer, the semantic indications that you
may need; and the true users have the display you intend. The only
"losers" are such as those here, who like to read the source code of
pages from the Web.

And, some years after W3 takes up the idea, the pre-processor will no
longer be needed.

--
© John Stockton, Surrey, UK. ?@merlyn.demon.co.uk Turnpike v4.00 IE 4 ©
<URL:http://www.jibbering.com/faq/> JL/RC: FAQ of news:comp.lang.javascript
<URL:http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/js-index.htm> jscr maths, dates, sources.
<URL:http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/> TP/BP/Delphi/jscr/&c, FAQ items, links.

Neredbojias wrote:

I've done a fair amount of layout using purely CSS and I'm quite
familiar with the arguments on each side of the "table layout"
debate. In the end, I chose a very simple table structure to layout
http://www.javascripttoolbox.com/ , for example. >> I've never had a
single user complaint.
You've never had me as a user...

If the web site is visible in your browser and the information you seek is
easily obtained, I'm not sure why you would want to complain, or on what
grounds you would do so.

Actually, the css box-model allows you to make almost any kind of box
imaginable except the one you really want.

Then the argument for tables-based layout is quite clear

--
Matt Kruse
http://www.JavascriptToolbox.com
http://www.AjaxToolbox.com

On Sun, 14 May 2006 18:31:09 +0100 Dr John Stockton <jrs (AT) merlyn (DOT) demon.co.uk> wrote:

JRS: In article <e43o4s22tmi (AT) news3 (DOT) newsguy.com>, dated Sat, 13 May 2006
04:43:08 remote, seen in news:comp.infosystems.www.authoring.stylesheets
, phil-news-nospam (AT) ipal (DOT) net posted :

Then I think they should add this capability in another form, to CSS3,
so that we have a means to do the layouts in a way that works like that
of tables. Ironically, whatever it would be called, it would just be a
duplication of tables; implementation would be to alias a new name to
the existing tables capability. So then what is the gain?


Web pages are intended, on the whole, to be read as displayed by
browsers. Only the authors/maintainers need to read the source code.

So, where you have truly tabular material, use <TABLE> <TBODY> <TR> <TH
TD>; where you have material most readily or suitably laid out with CSS
boxes, use CSS boxes.

Why not CSS tables? CSS boxes don't do what I want when I want the kinds
of things I will pick tables to use.

And where you have non-tabular material best laid out on a grid, use
GRID> <GBODY> <GR> <GH> <GD> for your authoring; and run a pre-
processor to convert those G characters to T characters.

What's the point of this? The last place I can process it is the server.
And sometimes maybe not even there. I can process it in my head just as
effectively.

Now you have, as author/maintainer, the semantic indications that you
may need; and the true users have the display you intend. The only
"losers" are such as those here, who like to read the source code of
pages from the Web.

They will just see whatever <GRID> got translated to. No gain.

And, some years after W3 takes up the idea, the pre-processor will no
longer be needed.

Provided they do it exactly this way. I can't depend on what that standard
will end up being like.

I'd rather take a wait and see approach, and then translate TABLE and friends
to whatever new comes out, however that translation has to be made then based
on what the standard ends up being like. Afterall, only the authors need to
read the source code, as you said way above.

--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Phil Howard KA9WGN | http://linuxhomepage.com/ http://ham.org/ |
(first name) at ipal.net | http://phil.ipal.org/ http://ka9wgn.ham.org/ |
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Neredbojias wrote:

I use a table in many of my headers because I want the align-right
right side delimited by and stopping at the align-left left side, not
overlapping it or dropping below it. This may not be absolutely
impossible in css, but it's improbable. As I said, "...any kind of
box but the one you want."

Something like this? No tables.
http://k75s.home.att.net/banner.html

--
-bts
-Warning: I brake for lawn deer

Beauregard T. Shagnasty wrote:

I use a table in many of my headers because I want the align-right
right side delimited by and stopping at the align-left left side, not
overlapping it or dropping below it.
Something like this? No tables.
http://k75s.home.att.net/banner.html

When the browser window is narrowed, content wraps and does so in an
incorrect order. (IE6, Win)

--
Matt Kruse
http://www.JavascriptToolbox.com
http://www.AjaxToolbox.com

Matt Kruse wrote:

Beauregard T. Shagnasty wrote:
[>> Neredbojias wrote:]
I use a table in many of my headers because I want the align-right
right side delimited by and stopping at the align-left left side,
not overlapping it or dropping below it.
Something like this? No tables.
http://k75s.home.att.net/banner.html

When the browser window is narrowed, content wraps and does so in an
incorrect order. (IE6, Win)

So how narrow was your window? Be realistic. The third one works fine
down to about a 350px wide browser window.

It was posted as a sample. Feel free to make adjustments.

--
-bts
-Warning: I brake for lawn deer

|> Show me some. But not simplistic blog pages. Show me one that looks
|> like CraigsList.Org but uses no tables ... and works in IE, too.

When I started learning English I didn't start with Shakespeare. It
took me 5 years to be able to fully understand Frankenstein. ;-)

Absolutely positioned? That's liable to break pretty badly. Sure, you
can make it track font size with emed-width (and perhaps height, too).
But how well will the layout hold with window sizes?

A bastard of an absolute positioned layout:

http://www.aigelsalvador.com/index.php

(but please don't repeat that anyway)

TABLES for me because ... THEY WORK.

Never believe that a compromise is OPTIMAL.

Ciao
Niels

Beauregard T. Shagnasty wrote:

So how narrow was your window? Be realistic. The third one works fine
down to about a 350px wide browser window.

Quite narrow, I admit. But in a realistic test case, the header may contain
much more content than your example, and wrapping problems will become
evident with wider windows.

It was posted as a sample. Feel free to make adjustments.

<table>



--
Matt Kruse
http://www.JavascriptToolbox.com
http://www.AjaxToolbox.com