css column layout

-Lost said:

I wouldn't call anything written or elaborated on by Dave Child, "bad."

Perhaps unorthodox, definitely another way of doing the same old thing
(which is all this new-age Web 2.0 BS is about), but definitely not
bad.

Oh, I had no intention to disparage his work in the slightest, I was
just trying to point out that even a bad CSS would be preferable to
tables. I didn't mean to infer anything about him or his site.

~A!

Anthony Levensalor said the following on 1/2/2008 12:09 PM:

Randy Webb said:
[snip]
When a table solution does exactly what you want it to do, and a CSS
solution doesn't, you use the one that does what you want it to do.
That, I cannot argue with. When the OP heads over to the CSS group and
mentions tables there, I hope they are as forgiving. Tables make good
things bad and bad things unusable.
[snip]
Besides, it doesn't give a solution, it gives a hack to make it appear
as if you have a solution.
I think I mentioned that it was illusory. Either way, the OP was asking
about CSS, and I abhor table layouts. I have seen too many break too
frequently and too easily. Getting started at a bad CSS tutorial is
better than using tables and applying CSS to them.

I am not going to have a tables vs. broken CSS debate here. If a table
is the best solution, then it is the best solution no matter where it is
debated. The same goes for a CSS solution. But, to simply make a blanket
statement "Don't ever use tables for layout" is just plain wrong.

--
Randy
Chance Favors The Prepared Mind
comp.lang.javascript FAQ - http://jibbering.com/faq/index.html
Javascript Best Practices - http://www.JavascriptToolbox.com/bestpractices/

On Jan 2, 11:55*am, Randy Webb <HikksNotAtH... (AT) aol (DOT) com> wrote:

Anthony Levensalor said the following on 1/2/2008 11:33 AM:

Bart Van der Donck said:

* <table border="1" width="100%"
* *<tr
* * <td align="left">main content</td
* * <td width="200" align="left">middle column</td
* * <td width="200" align="right">left column</td
* *</tr
* </table
This is not a good solution,

It is a *very* good solution to the issue.

because tables are meant for the tabular display of data, not page
layout. The issues IE has with it's broken box model and nested table
difficulties are reason enough, beside the fact it's generally
considered a horrid coding practice to use tables for layout.

When a table solution does exactly what you want it to do, and a CSS
solution doesn't, you use the one that does what you want it to do.

The floating left column is the CSS "holy grail", as it were. Here's one
tutorial on making it work anyway:

http://www.ilovejackdaniels.com/css/...iquid-layouts/

'action' is null or not an object

So the guy doesn't know JavaScript. I haven't read his article, so I
can't vouch for his CSS abilities either. But cross-browser multi-
column layouts without tabular semantics are not hard these days (as
opposed to five years ago.)

Besides, it doesn't give a solution, it gives a hack to make it appear
as if you have a solution.

The tables are the hack as they mess up the semantics of the page and
in the worst cases render the page incomprehensible to sight-impaired
readers and search engines. They also make it impossible to leverage
handheld style sheets to rearrange the layout to better fit small
screens.

Typically the only trickery involved with positioned (or floating)
DIV's for columns involves making them appear taller than they are.
The semantics of the page are preserved and when it comes to visuals,
perception is reality.

Randy Webb said:

[snip]

I am not going to have a tables vs. broken CSS debate here. If a table
is the best solution, then it is the best solution no matter where it is
debated. The same goes for a CSS solution. But, to simply make a blanket
statement "Don't ever use tables for layout" is just plain wrong.

Agreed. I tend to think most absolute statements are wrong. In my
vehemence over tables I overstepped.

~A!

In comp.lang.javascript message <a4KdneY7L8g1ZubaRVn_vwA (AT) giganews (DOT) com>,
Wed, 2 Jan 2008 16:02:10, Randy Webb <HikksNotAtHome (AT) aol (DOT) com> posted:

I am not going to have a tables vs. broken CSS debate here. If a table
is the best solution, then it is the best solution no matter where it
is debated. The same goes for a CSS solution. But, to simply make a
blanket statement "Don't ever use tables for layout" is just plain
wrong.

Agreed.

HTML was, AFAICS, initially written moderately pragmatically, so that a
<table> sufficed for anything of tabular or grid-type layout, whether or
not truly tabular.

The error has been the lack of provision of : either a documented
standard attribute, "grid" or "layout", with the sole effect of removing
the presumption that the content would be tabular data ; or a new tag
<grid> or <layout> behaving similarly to <table>.

Rhetorical :
What proportion of coders could lay out a 7-segment display as a Table?
What proportion of coders could lay out a 7-segment display in pure CSS?
I can say only that the former is not zero but the latter might be.

--
(c) John Stockton, Surrey, UK. ?@merlyn.demon.co.uk DOS 3.3, 6.20 ; WinXP.
Web <URL:http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/> - FAQqish topics, acronyms & links.
PAS EXE TXT ZIP via <URL:http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/programs/00index.htm>
My DOS <URL:http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/batfiles.htm> - also batprogs.htm.

On Jan 3, 11:50*am, Dr J R Stockton <j... (AT) merlyn (DOT) demon.co.uk> wrote:

In comp.lang.javascript message <a4KdneY7L8g1ZubaRVn_... (AT) giganews (DOT) com>,
Wed, 2 Jan 2008 16:02:10, Randy Webb <HikksNotAtH... (AT) aol (DOT) com> posted:



I am not going to have a tables vs. broken CSS debate here. If a table
is the best solution, then it is the best solution no matter where it
is debated. The same goes for a CSS solution. But, to simply make a
blanket statement "Don't ever use tables for layout" is just plain
wrong.

Agreed.

I think it is a good rule these days. Five years ago it would have
been unworkable.

HTML was, AFAICS, initially written moderately pragmatically, so that a
table> sufficed for anything of tabular or grid-type layout, whether or
not truly tabular.

The error has been the lack of provision of : either a documented
standard attribute, "grid" or "layout", with the sole effect of removing
the presumption that the content would be tabular data ; or a new tag
grid> or <layout> behaving similarly to <table>.

Rhetorical :
What proportion of coders could lay out a 7-segment display as a Table?
What proportion of coders could lay out a 7-segment display in pure CSS?
I can say only that the former is not zero but the latter might be.

The number of columns (if that is what you mean by segment) doesn't
really complicate things, though more than 3 would seem a bad idea for
a Web page. Assuming such a layout were needed, I would advise
against using a table to render it as it would be virtually unusable
on mobile devices. On the other hand, using CSS positioning, it is
trivial to turn it into a single-column layout with a handheld style
sheet.

In comp.lang.javascript message <117794ba-9dd9-4e28-ae19-10eafdd778a7@s1
2g2000prg.googlegroups.com>, Thu, 3 Jan 2008 17:57:37, David Mark
<dmark.cinsoft (AT) gmail (DOT) com> posted:

Rhetorical :
What proportion of coders could lay out a 7-segment display as a Table?
What proportion of coders could lay out a 7-segment display in pure CSS?
I can say only that the former is not zero but the latter might be.


The number of columns (if that is what you mean by segment) doesn't
really complicate things, though more than 3 would seem a bad idea for
a Web page. Assuming such a layout were needed, I would advise
against using a table to render it as it would be virtually unusable
on mobile devices. On the other hand, using CSS positioning, it is
trivial to turn it into a single-column layout with a handheld style
sheet.

(1) It was rhetorical!
(2) I think you misunderstood - see <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seven-
segment_display> and <$$7seg.htm>.
(3) E-mail in hand.

--
(c) John Stockton, Surrey, UK. *@merlyn.demon.co.uk / ??.Stockton (AT) physics (DOT) org
Web <URL:http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/> - FAQish topics, acronyms, & links.
Correct <= 4-line sig. separator as above, a line precisely "-- " (SoRFC1036)
Do not Mail News to me. Before a reply, quote with ">" or "> " (SoRFC1036)

On Jan 5, 11:56*am, Dr J R Stockton <j... (AT) merlyn (DOT) demon.co.uk> wrote:

In comp.lang.javascript message <117794ba-9dd9-4e28-ae19-10eafdd778a7@s1
2g2000prg.googlegroups.com>, Thu, 3 Jan 2008 17:57:37, David Mark
dmark.cins... (AT) gmail (DOT) com> posted:

Rhetorical :
What proportion of coders could lay out a 7-segment display as a Table?
What proportion of coders could lay out a 7-segment display in pure CSS?
I can say only that the former is not zero but the latter might be.

The number of columns (if that is what you mean by segment) doesn't
really complicate things, though more than 3 would seem a bad idea for
a Web page. *Assuming such a layout were needed, I would advise
against using a table to render it as it would be virtually unusable
on mobile devices. *On the other hand, using CSS positioning, it is
trivial to turn it into a single-column layout with a handheld style
sheet.

(1) It was rhetorical!

I know. That's why I didn't answer it.

(2) I think you misunderstood - see <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seven-
segment_display> and <$$7seg.htm>.

I did misunderstand. But I would implement that with positioned
elements as well.

Dr J R Stockton said the following on 1/5/2008 11:56 AM:

In comp.lang.javascript message <117794ba-9dd9-4e28-ae19-10eafdd778a7@s1
2g2000prg.googlegroups.com>, Thu, 3 Jan 2008 17:57:37, David Mark
dmark.cinsoft (AT) gmail (DOT) com> posted:
Rhetorical :
What proportion of coders could lay out a 7-segment display as a Table?
What proportion of coders could lay out a 7-segment display in pure CSS?
I can say only that the former is not zero but the latter might be.

The number of columns (if that is what you mean by segment) doesn't
really complicate things, though more than 3 would seem a bad idea for
a Web page. Assuming such a layout were needed, I would advise
against using a table to render it as it would be virtually unusable
on mobile devices. On the other hand, using CSS positioning, it is
trivial to turn it into a single-column layout with a handheld style
sheet.

(1) It was rhetorical!
(2) I think you misunderstood - see <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seven-
segment_display> and <$$7seg.htm>.

If you wrap URLs in URL tags, they won't get wrapped.

--
Randy
Chance Favors The Prepared Mind
comp.lang.javascript FAQ - http://jibbering.com/faq/index.html
Javascript Best Practices - http://www.JavascriptToolbox.com/bestpractices/