CSS vs Tables

Al Sparber and company at Project Seven (www.projectseven.com) have, I
think, the best and least complicated approach to CSS around. Check out
their tutorials and see if you agree. It just "clicks" in my head the way
they present things, you know?


"Malcolm N....." <malcolm (AT) mgnixon (DOT) org.uk> wrote

On Thu, 03 Nov 2005 16:38:41 -0800, Donna Casey
infoREMOVETHIS (AT) n2dreamweaver (DOT) com> wrote:



There's a difference between using CSS for positioning and layout and
"using layers," particularly if you mean building those "layers" with
the draw layer tool in Dreamweaver. HUGE difference.

Yes I'm learning that now - thanks.


CSS layout is becoming the norm, imo. But I NEVER use the draw layer
tool. I try my best to semantically correct markup (html or xhtml), the
proper doctype, and reasonably uncomplicated css.


go for it! you'll never get comfortable with it if you don't try.

Donna


Yes - thanks - I'll do that - but my existing site is 200 pages with
templates and tables - so that will take some time to convert.

I'm thinking of going on a DW course to learn more advanced things -
and this is an area I want to master.

--

~Malcolm N....
~
webmaster http://www.nb-president.org.uk/
Steam narrow boat President
Using DW 8

Roby wrote:

Just another question, based on what Osgood says about the two columns.
Doesn't it takes more amount of code to use CSS than tables, doesn't it
makes it slower? Am I missing the point?

Not necesarily you have <td> <tr> plus cellpadding and cellspacing
associated with table code whereas a <div>.......well just a <div> tag

My reasoning is purely based on why make a 'mountain out of a mole hill'
which in some cases is what floating <divs> do. Float was never meant to
be used in this fashion anyway, (so Al Sparber PV11 says and I'm pretty
much sure he is correct), so those who tell you tables is for tabular
data and not layout are somewhat contradictng themselves.

Float was never meant to

be used in this fashion anyway,

Huh? Where was that written? (other than by Al, which would have weight
with me, but I'm looking for where the "spec" says what float was
"meant" for)

Donna

Osgood wrote:

For me it comes down to a matter of choice. I now, after many months
experimenting, do not think one method is better than another. I look
at the situtaion and make my decision based on what needs to be done.

"do not think one method is better than another".
I believe out of 2 methods there is always one better than the other. And it
would be interesting to list the parameters that would be used to judge both
techniques.
Also one could say it's "separation of structure and presentation", the
other could say it can "create columns of equal height". One could say it
"saves bandwidth", the other could say it lets you "vertical-align stuff".
Etc.
If columns of equal-height (without using faux-columns technique or
"one-true-layout" method [1]) is a must for you then go with tables. IMO,
the real issue is not about the tool itself, but more about what you
consider important.

--
Thierry | http://www.TJKDesign.com | CSS-P Templates + Articles:
CSS Popups, CSS 3 Column Layout, CSS Tabs, CSS Dropdown Menu,
TIP Method, Sliced Images, Clean Popup Windows, Easy Maintenance.....
[1] www.positioniseverything.net

Mack879w wrote:

Well, after reading through the entire thread. I am starting to see
a bit of ignorance in my previous statement yesterday. I guess I was
just looking at tables as a stricly a layout tool. It seems they do
have their place. Orignally, the whole reason I got dreamweaver was
for it's CSS ability and really focused on that.

This is why I love this forum. Even just reading through threads
you can pick up a hell of a lot of information.

So to all you expirienced developers, thanks for enlightening a
novice...

Actually, I believe this thread does not contain much information about the
pros/cons of the 2 methods.
If it did, you would not be confused - you'd know that "CSS-P" is the way to
go
One important thing to remember from this thread, is that once in a while,
Murray is wrong

--
Thierry | http://www.TJKDesign.com | CSS-P Templates + Articles:
CSS Popups, CSS 3 Column Layout, CSS Tabs, CSS Dropdown Menu,
TIP Method, Sliced Images, Clean Popup Windows, Easy Maintenance.....

Roby wrote:

they'll certainly won't look at the code.
I was wondering if there was any tangible advantage, but for what's
been written on the thread it's not too black and white.
Guess I'll read a few more tutorials, about it.

Just another question, based on what Osgood says about the two
columns. Doesn't it takes more amount of code to use CSS than tables,
doesn't it makes it slower? Am I missing the point?

No, it's less HTML markup with a few CSS rules. But the CSS is cached, *not*
the DIV or table markup.
I didn't want to be treated as a zealot, so I didn't even go that route in
this thread. I mentioned my personal experience rather than listing the pros
about using CSS for layout. Now I almost regret because Murray somehow
managed to insult me LOL

Advantages are so huge that table layouts just do not make sense at all; and
talking about columns of equal height or vertical alignment to justify using
them does not make more sense.
As I've said many time, I do not care what people use; actually, it makes me
look more "professional"

--
Thierry | http://www.TJKDesign.com | CSS-P Templates + Articles:
CSS Popups, CSS 3 Column Layout, CSS Tabs, CSS Dropdown Menu,
TIP Method, Sliced Images, Clean Popup Windows, Easy Maintenance.....

Thierry | www.TJKDesign.com wrote:

Osgood wrote:

For me it comes down to a matter of choice. I now, after many months
experimenting, do not think one method is better than another. I look
at the situtaion and make my decision based on what needs to be done.


"do not think one method is better than another".
I believe out of 2 methods there is always one better than the other. And it
would be interesting to list the parameters that would be used to judge both
techniques.
Also one could say it's "separation of structure and presentation", the
other could say it can "create columns of equal height". One could say it
"saves bandwidth", the other could say it lets you "vertical-align stuff".
Etc.
If columns of equal-height (without using faux-columns technique or
"one-true-layout" method [1]) is a must for you then go with tables. IMO,
the real issue is not about the tool itself, but more about what you
consider important.

I agree with that. I think its of benefit to those that perhaps havent
had so much experience to get views from all angles. They can them make
up there own mind as what is best for them.

Donna Casey wrote:

Float was never meant to
be used in this fashion anyway,

Huh? Where was that written? (other than by Al, which would have weight
with me, but I'm looking for where the "spec" says what float was
"meant" for)

Donna

Donna,

I believe I was over at the PVII forum and this 'css v tables' debate as
you know just keeps going around in circles.

I seem to remember Al saying that 'float' was never meant to be used to
place two <divs> side-by-side. However I have no idea what its original
intended purpose was.

I guess to clarify this I'd like to hear it 'straight from the horses
mouth' again. I may have just dreamt this.

So if Al is around then come join the party.

I seem to remember Al saying that 'float' was never meant to be used to
place two <divs> side-by-side. However I have no idea what its original
intended purpose was.

I definitely don't remember him saying this. One could also say that float
was not intended to make list items line up horizontally, but he does that.

I don't think one can *know* what float was intended to do, other than to
allow adjacent content to flow around the element as an island in a river.

--
Murray --- ICQ 71997575
Team Macromedia Volunteer for Dreamweaver
(If you *MUST* email me, don't LAUGH when you do so!)
==================
http://www.dreamweavermx-templates.com - Template Triage!
http://www.projectseven.com/go - DW FAQs, Tutorials & Resources
http://www.dwfaq.com - DW FAQs, Tutorials & Resources
http://www.macromedia.com/support/search/ - Macromedia (MM) Technotes
==================

"Osgood" <notavailable (AT) atthisaddress (DOT) com> wrote

Donna Casey wrote:

Float was never meant to
be used in this fashion anyway,

Huh? Where was that written? (other than by Al, which would have weight
with me, but I'm looking for where the "spec" says what float was "meant"
for)

Donna

Donna,

I believe I was over at the PVII forum and this 'css v tables' debate as
you know just keeps going around in circles.

I seem to remember Al saying that 'float' was never meant to be used to
place two <divs> side-by-side. However I have no idea what its original
intended purpose was.

I guess to clarify this I'd like to hear it 'straight from the horses
mouth' again. I may have just dreamt this.

So if Al is around then come join the party.

Murray *TMM* wrote:

I seem to remember Al saying that 'float' was never meant to be used
to place two <divs> side-by-side. However I have no idea what its
original intended purpose was.

I definitely don't remember him saying this. One could also say that
float was not intended to make list items line up horizontally, but
he does that.

I don't think one can *know* what float was intended to do, other
than to allow adjacent content to flow around the element as an
island in a river.

One think we know *for sure* is that tables were *not meant* for layout


--
Thierry | http://www.TJKDesign.com | CSS-P Templates + Articles:
CSS Popups, CSS 3 Column Layout, CSS Tabs, CSS Dropdown Menu,
TIP Method, Sliced Images, Clean Popup Windows, Easy Maintenance.....