layers to tables.....good idea??

i've read that converting tables to layers is not a good idea.

but what about converting from LAYERS TO TABLES??

pros and cons?

thanks

Neither are a good idea.

You are better off starting your design in the way you mean to continue,
that is, use layers (divs) OR tables.
Doing it any other way is going to cause you more trouble than you can
imagine and as well as bloat your code.

--
Nadia
---------------
http://www.DreamweaverResources.com
Free Templates | Free Nav Bar Sets
Dropdown Menu Designs | CSS Layouts
Ecommerce - YVStore | SEO Articles
Table Tutorials | Background image Tutorials
------------------------------------------------
:Flexible Table Tutorial:
http://www.dwfaq.com/Tutorials/Tables/flexible_tables.asp
-----------------


"bpark7373" <webforumsuser (AT) macromedia (DOT) com> wrote

i've read that converting tables to layers is not a good idea.

but what about converting from LAYERS TO TABLES??

pros and cons?

thanks

bpark7373 wrote:

but what about converting from LAYERS TO TABLES??

pros and cons?

Pros: Uhhh ...

Cons: Writes horrendously bloated, inflexible, and overly complex tables
that you will never be able to debug when they start to explode. Note
that I said "when" and not "if".


Gary

Hello,
Still pretty new here, but I had a page that had a lot of layers that I
converted to tables. I ended up with a hundred empty cells, rowspans, colspans,
transparent gifs and a huge amount of code. Give it a try, just put four or
five layers of different sizes on a page. Look at the code, then convert to
tables. Now look at the code. Yikes!
As far as pros for it, like I said..I'm still learning and haven't found any
yet, but I did live one of the cons.
Take care.

AFAIK, the feature of converting in either direction has been part of
Dreamweaver since its inception and is a hangover from the late 90's and v.3
(and earlier) browsers.

It is not required today because modern browsers can easily handle layers
and/or tables and the feature should be discontinued by MM.

--
Regards

John Waller

TC2112 wrote:

Still pretty new here, but I had a page that had a lot of layers that I
converted to tables. I ended up with a hundred empty cells, rowspans, colspans,
transparent gifs and a huge amount of code. Give it a try, just put four or
five layers of different sizes on a page. Look at the code, then convert to
tables. Now look at the code. Yikes!

Want to see something funny? After the Convert to Tables, convert that
page back to layers. :-0


Gary

WOW!

thanks john and everyone else for your insightful reponses. i've been reading
dreamweavermx2004 for dummies and they didn't seem to mention the horror of
converting.

so how many people today design in LAYERS vs tables? are you guys telling me
it's a good idea now to STAY IN LAYERS???

so how many people today design in LAYERS vs tables?

Well "layers" is a Dreamweaver term and a bit of a misnomer.

What Dreamweavercalls "Layers" are actually <div>'s which are absolutely
positioned (see your code) i.e. fixed at a given coordinate on the page. You
can also relatively position <div>'s. This is all part of the CSS method of
layout.

The real debate these days is whether to layout your page with tables or
exclusively with CSS or even a mixture of both and the jury's still out
while the battle rages.

In the red corner we have the tried and tested tables which have been around
for years and feel like a pair of comfortable old shoes once you understand
how they work. In the blue corner, we have the lean, mean,
new-kid-on-the-block, CSS, which has its own frustrations and learning curve
(and its own advantages of course). You can also combine the two which is
yet another story.

are you guys

telling me it's a good idea now to STAY IN LAYERS???

If you have DW "layers" and the page works, there's no compelling reason to
change.

Got a URL?

--
Regards

John Waller

telling me it's a good idea now to STAY IN LAYERS???

If you have DW "layers" and the page works, there's no compelling reason to
change.

and- there's many reasons especially to not "convert layers to tables"

it was provided as a quick way to make a page that would work in version 3
browsers (so it's almost pointless to do in 2004)

it makes bloated table code- creating a table grid that can fit all the
coordinates of the fixed-position divisions on the page. So you might have a
single table that's got 30 columns and 50 rows, with 80% of the 150 cells
being empty. That makes it almost impossible to sight-read the code to find
or fix things.

it will remove any behaviors applied to the <div> tags, since it's replacing
them..

if the page works as designed in "layers" leave it that way.
the only trickiness is that in most cases- the resulting page won't be
"liquid", it will work at a certain browser width and may go a bit wonky if
the user has their browser set to increase the text size (but that can be
minimized by using CSS to control text sizing)

Hi Gary,
Just tried that. :-0 I only made the mistake of converting once.
I'm glad I found these boards and listened to you guys a while ago. I decide
on tables or layers first, am learning CSS, don't go near Layout Mode, and
always use the Properties window to change size and position of tables and
divs.
So while I'm thinking of it, thanks to all of you for the great advice :-)