No TABLES in html. No hacks in CSS. Any layout possible,crossbrowser. Try it.

Please check out my javascript library that allows you to create any
layout for your web page, nested as deep as you like, adjusting to
width and height of a browser window. You just describe it in
javascript object and that's all. No need to know CSS hacks, no need
to clutter your html with tables.

http://www.bravelayout.scarabeo.biz/Quickstart

On Sun, 30 Dec 2007 13:42:06 +0100, brave1979 <brave1979 (AT) o2 (DOT) pl> wrote:

Please check out my javascript library

Using javascript for layout.... terrible idea. And hardly crossbrowser.

--
Rik Wasmus

brave1979 wrote:

Please check out my javascript library that allows you to create any
layout for your web page, nested as deep as you like, adjusting to
width and height of a browser window. You just describe it in
javascript object and that's all. No need to know CSS hacks, no need
to clutter your html with tables.

http://www.bravelayout.scarabeo.biz/Quickstart

You are using tables, you're just using Javascript to create them:

<table style="border-collapse: collapse; width: 100%; height:
100%;"><tbody><tr><td style="padding: 0pt 0pt 10px; vertical-align:
bottom; width: 100%; height: 100%; text-align: center;"><table
style="border-collapse: collapse; width: 300px; height: 100%;
margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><tbody><tr><td style="padding:
0pt; vertical-align: top; width: 100%; height: 10%;"><table class="blue"
style="border-collapse: collapse; width: 100%; height:
100%;"><tbody><tr><td style="padding: 0pt; vertical-align: top; width:
100%; height: 100%;"><div
id="header">#header</div></td></tr></tbody></table></td></tr><tr><td
style="padding: 0pt; vertical-align: top; width: 100%; height:
100%;"><table style="border-collapse: collapse; width: 100%; height:
100%;"><tbody><tr><td style="padding: 0pt; vertical-align: top; width:
20%; height: 100%;"><div style="background: transparent none repeat
scroll 0%; overflow: hidden; width: 20%; line-height: 1px; height: 1px;
margin-top: -1px; -moz-background-clip: -moz-initial;
-moz-background-origin: -moz-initial; -moz-background-inline-policy:
-moz-initial;"></div><table class="red" style="border-collapse:
collapse; width: 100%; height: 100%;"><tbody><tr><td style="padding:
0pt; vertical-align: top; width: 100%; height: 100%;"><div
id="menu">#menu</div></td></tr></tbody></table></td><td style="padding:
0pt; vertical-align: top; width: 100%; height: 100%;"><table
class="yellow" style="border-collapse: collapse; width: 100%; height:
100%;"><tbody><tr><td style="padding: 0pt; vertical-align: top; width:
100%; height: 100%;"><div
id="content">#content</div></td></tr></tbody></table></td></tr></tbody></table></td></tr><tr><td
style="padding: 0pt; vertical-align: top; width: 100%; height:
15px;"><table class="gray" style="border-collapse: collapse; width:
100%; height: 15px;"><tbody><tr><td style="padding: 0pt; vertical-align:
top; width: 100%; height: 100%;"><div
id="footer">#footer</div></td></tr></tbody></table></td></tr></tbody></table></td></tr></tbody></table>

On Dec 30, 5:49 pm, "Rik Wasmus" <luiheidsgoe... (AT) hotmail (DOT) com> wrote:

On Sun, 30 Dec 2007 13:42:06 +0100, brave1979 <brave1... (AT) o2 (DOT) pl> wrote:
Please check out my javascript library

Using javascript for layout.... terrible idea. And hardly crossbrowser.
Really? How do you call a thing that works in IE, Firefox, Opera,

Safari and Konqueror then ?

More important is that with my lib you can achieve being crossbrowser
almost effortless and your html files and even css files stay clean
hack-free, table-free.

On Dec 30, 7:02 pm, Harlan Messinger
<hmessinger.removet... (AT) comcast (DOT) net> wrote:

brave1979 wrote:
Please check out my javascript library that allows you to create any
layout for your web page, nested as deep as you like, adjusting to
width and height of a browser window. You just describe it in
javascript object and that's all. No need to know CSS hacks, no need
to clutter your html with tables.

http://www.bravelayout.scarabeo.biz/Quickstart

You are using tables, you're just using Javascript to create them:

I'm not using tables in my html, isn't that enough? I keep my html
clean and I can order content any way I want. It's human friendly and
robot friendly.

brave1979 wrote:

On Dec 30, 7:02 pm, Harlan Messinger
hmessinger.removet... (AT) comcast (DOT) net> wrote:
brave1979 wrote:
Please check out my javascript library that allows you to create any
layout for your web page, nested as deep as you like, adjusting to
width and height of a browser window. You just describe it in
javascript object and that's all. No need to know CSS hacks, no need
to clutter your html with tables.
http://www.bravelayout.scarabeo.biz/Quickstart
You are using tables, you're just using Javascript to create them:

I'm not using tables in my html, isn't that enough?

Enough for what? Evidently you're misunderstanding the intent of the
guidance to avoid using tables for layout.

I keep my html
clean

By switching to Javascript to lay out your page, which is worse?

and I can order content any way I want. It's human friendly and
robot friendly.

Not if the human isn't using Javascript.

On Sun, 30 Dec 2007 23:46:20 +0100, brave1979 <brave1979 (AT) o2 (DOT) pl> wrote:

On Dec 30, 5:49 pm, "Rik Wasmus" <luiheidsgoe... (AT) hotmail (DOT) com> wrote:
On Sun, 30 Dec 2007 13:42:06 +0100, brave1979 <brave1... (AT) o2 (DOT) pl> wrote:
Please check out my javascript library

Using javascript for layout.... terrible idea. And hardly crossbrowser.
Really? How do you call a thing that works in IE, Firefox, Opera,
Safari and Konqueror then ?

A thing that works in certain browsers under certain conditions provided
they have certain settings? It would not work in my Opera, as I myself
have javascript disabled for most sites, save a few exceptions.

More important is that with my lib you can achieve being crossbrowser
almost effortless and your html files and even css files stay clean
hack-free, table-free.

I have no real trouble getting nice layouts in all browsers without any
hacks in CSS or javascript (oh yes, I do use it to provide extended
usability/features for those who have it enabled, those who have it
disabled don't miss anything). No, they are not pixel for pixel alike,
then again, I don't design them to need that.

Really knowing CSS & HTML, and the way to publish on the www is quite
enough.
--
Rik Wasmus

Using javascript for layout.... terrible idea. And hardly
crossbrowser.

Really? How do you call a thing that works in IE, Firefox, Opera,
Safari and Konqueror then ?

Disable JavaScript, like ~10% of your visitors, and look at your page
again. Not everyone has it enabled, or available - stripped by a
corporate firewall, for example - so your method has similar results to
turning off your web server for a month every year.

Can you show me some hard data backing up your claim that 10% of
visitors do not have Javascript enabled? Even for such people all
content is still readable and if you really care you can provide them
with something easy on eyes.

I would have expected you to have at least a link to a demonstration
page at the link you mentioned.

You say, "You just need to write something like this!"
but it is a *lot* easier just to write regular old HTML than your
script, with its errors. A *lot* easier.
This is very simple example. True strength of my approach is ability

to nest layouts, and ability to change them as requirements change.

You also say, "HTML is horrible. It's not suitable for anything more
visually complicated than a short school essay. " You must be new to
this game. HTML and CSS can do much more than you seem to realize.
Actually I'm pretty old to this game and tired from countless

occasions when I tried to get something look good and do what I want
in different browsers. I joined this game before such thing as
tableless layout was even possible.

And I'll bet the total weight in bytes of a plain HTML/CSS page is quite
a bit less than your convoluted approach.
It's not weight in bytes that matters. It's weight in hours of

programmer time stolen that matters.
And for more complex layout there should be no significant difference
in size between my approach and css hacking.

More important is that with my lib you can achieve being crossbrowser
almost effortless and your html files and even css files stay clean
hack-free, table-free.

My HTML and CSS files are already "hack-free". You will have to explain
in some detail why you think differently.
Then you are lucky guy, browsing internet tells me not everybody is as

lucky as you. Explain? underscore hack, asterisk hack, .clearfix ...
I'm sure you know what I'm talking about.

Your other post:

I'm not using tables in my html, isn't that enough?

No. It is still using "tables for layout", a process we keep stressing
should be avoided.
Could you remind me real quick why this should be avoided? Semantic

html, uncluttered html, crossbrowser comes to my mind. My approach has
this qualities. Or maybe tables has been declared as devils spawn by
vatican and should be as such?

I keep my html clean and I can order content any way I want. It's
human friendly and robot friendly.

Your sample code is using a Transitional doctype. What are you
transitioning from? That's for legacy pages; use Strict instead.
Maybe you can put browser in quirks mode with strict doctype

declaraion, I haven't tried that yet. It's work in progress.

You
assign font size in pixels; that too has gone the way of the dodo bird.
Use percentages instead. See:http://k75s.home.att.net/fontsize.html
This has nothing to do with my lib so you can specify fonts any way

you like while using it. I like pixels for this simple example.

Clean code? <lol> See:
http://validator.w3.org/check?verbos...2Fwww.bravelay...

This page is not Valid XHTML 1.0 Transitional!
Result: Failed validation, 119 Errors
Why do you try to validate it as XHTML if it's indicated as HTML

Transitional in DOCTYPE?
It's valid HTML 4.01 Transitional (after some minor fixes).

Human friendly, perhaps, to the other 90%.
Robots (search engines?) don't read and execute JavaScript.
And that's good because visual layout of a page is none of their

interest.

You need to rethink what you are doing.
I am constantly rethinking almost everything I am doing.

On Dec 31, 12:31 am, Harlan Messinger
<hmessinger.removet... (AT) comcast (DOT) net> wrote:

brave1979 wrote:
On Dec 30, 7:02 pm, Harlan Messinger
hmessinger.removet... (AT) comcast (DOT) net> wrote:
brave1979 wrote:
Please check out my javascript library that allows you to create any
layout for your web page, nested as deep as you like, adjusting to
width and height of a browser window. You just describe it in
javascript object and that's all. No need to know CSS hacks, no need
to clutter your html with tables.
http://www.bravelayout.scarabeo.biz/Quickstart
You are using tables, you're just using Javascript to create them:

I'm not using tables in my html, isn't that enough?

Enough for what? Evidently you're misunderstanding the intent of the
guidance to avoid using tables for layout.
I thought tables were avoided for some real benefits like semantic

content, clean html, separating defining visual aspects from defining
content. My lib does all that, and it's easy to use.

I keep my html
clean

By switching to Javascript to lay out your page, which is worse?
How is it worse?

and I can order content any way I want. It's human friendly and
robot friendly.

Not if the human isn't using Javascript.
Just as most of web 2.0 and all that nice ajax ;-)

On Dec 31, 1:56 am, "Rik Wasmus" <luiheidsgoe... (AT) hotmail (DOT) com> wrote:

On Sun, 30 Dec 2007 23:46:20 +0100, brave1979 <brave1... (AT) o2 (DOT) pl> wrote:
On Dec 30, 5:49 pm, "Rik Wasmus" <luiheidsgoe... (AT) hotmail (DOT) com> wrote:
On Sun, 30 Dec 2007 13:42:06 +0100, brave1979 <brave1... (AT) o2 (DOT) pl> wrote:
Please check out my javascript library

Using javascript for layout.... terrible idea. And hardly crossbrowser.
Really? How do you call a thing that works in IE, Firefox, Opera,
Safari and Konqueror then ?

A thing that works in certain browsers under certain conditions provided
they have certain settings? It would not work in my Opera, as I myself
have javascript disabled for most sites, save a few exceptions.
A thing that works in all major modern browser with default settings.

Is that really valid argument against my lib that you have found
proper option in your browser and disabled it?
Is a fact that I disabled CSS in my browser a valid argument against
tableless layouts? Should you use tables and 1px gifs because of that
fact?

More important is that with my lib you can achieve being crossbrowser
almost effortless and your html files and even css files stay clean
hack-free, table-free.

I have no real trouble getting nice layouts in all browsers without any
hacks in CSS or javascript (oh yes, I do use it to provide extended
usability/features for those who have it enabled, those who have it
disabled don't miss anything). No, they are not pixel for pixel alike,
then again, I don't design them to need that.
You design them. That's the reason why they are easy for you to code.

And you still can get them right in all browsers.
Person who knows photoshop and person who knows html are not always
the same person. You can remove from your design things that you don't
know how to do in html. But when coders get prepared, discussed and
accepted layout in psd they can only do their best.

Really knowing CSS & HTML, and the way to publish on the www is quite
enough.
Internet is living proof for that but assembler is also quite enough

to implement anything at any machine, it's just not the most efficient
way.