killer reason for not using tables?

West wrote:

So, what do have at the end of this thread :-
1. Tables do not pose serious issues for aural/text browsers?[1]
2. Tables 'may' present a problem for the tiny % of mobile device users?

Also:

3. Table-based layouts tend to result in larger file sizes. If you use CSS
it is true that you have an extra file to download, but once this has been
downloaded it can be cached for use on the next page.

4. Many browsers wait to download "</table>" before even beginning to
render the table. This can cause delays in rendering pages.

5. With a CSS-based layout you can move a navigation column from the left
to the right and back again on a whim -- just by editing a few lines in a
single CSS file. With table-based layouts it requires restructuring each
page.

6. Tables for layout hinders the take-up of the semantic web.

7. Every time you use a table for layout a puppy dies.

[1] Table-based layouts *may* pose serious problems for browsers that do
not support tables. It depends on the layout and the browser.

--
Toby A Inkster BSc (Hons) ARCS
Contact Me - http://www.goddamn.co.uk/tobyink/?page=132

Toby A Inkster <UseTheAddressInMySig (AT) deadspam (DOT) com> wrote in
newsan.2003.11.08.00.38.06.69903 (AT) goddamn (DOT) co.uk:

West wrote:

So, what do have at the end of this thread :-
1. Tables do not pose serious issues for aural/text browsers?[1]
2. Tables 'may' present a problem for the tiny % of mobile device
users?

Also:

3. Table-based layouts tend to result in larger file sizes. If you use
CSS it is true that you have an extra file to download, but once this
has been downloaded it can be cached for use on the next page.

4. Many browsers wait to download "</table>" before even beginning to
render the table. This can cause delays in rendering pages.

5. With a CSS-based layout you can move a navigation column from the
left to the right and back again on a whim -- just by editing a few
lines in a single CSS file. With table-based layouts it requires
restructuring each page.

6. Tables for layout hinders the take-up of the semantic web.

7. Every time you use a table for layout a puppy dies.

8. If tables were used exclusively for tabular data, browser developers,
particularly developers of auditory browsers, would be able to make
browsers treat tables in ways that would be highly appropriate for tabular
data, such as being able to lock headings in place while scrolling (for
visual browsers) or being able to hear the heading corresponding to any
row/column (for auditory browsers). The features could extend to the point
of providing a true spreadsheet-like interface to tables, complete with
column sorting and the like.

"Nico Schuyt" <nschuyt (AT) hotmail (DOT) com> wrote

Bonnie Granat wrote:
"Michael Hughes" wrote

I've become part of a team to redevelop
a major coporate website. I find myself
alone argueing for not using tables.
I'm looking for that one,
simple killer reason I can give to make the
case for not using them.

STAM = Saves time and money
Coding time goes down. People can do other things.
Server space needs reduced. All those table tags take up real estate
and cost money.

Well, designing in CSS/div boxes can be quite expensive too :-)
Nico
(How much money did you spent on developing http://www.granatedit.com?)

You know, I thought about that as I was writing, but decided that it was
true, anyway.


--
--
Bonnie Granat
http://www.granatedit.com

Eric Bohlman wrote:

8. If tables were used exclusively for tabular data, browser developers,
particularly developers of auditory browsers, would be able to make
browsers treat tables in ways that would be highly appropriate for tabular
data

Great minds think alike:
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm...odda mn.co.uk
(point 3)

Or should that be "two fools with only one mind"?

--
Toby A Inkster BSc (Hons) ARCS
Contact Me - http://www.goddamn.co.uk/tobyink/?page=132

picayunish wrote:

picayunish wrote in news:M2zqb.1680$%W3.7045@amstwist00:

Hmmm.
Disabling tables. I thought you can only disabling JS and Cookies
with the browsers.
Where can I find those browsers, that can disabling tables.

A lot of replies on the subject disabing tables.
Thanx mates, I was forgotten about the text-browsers.

What's next. Disabling webpages in the browsers ?

a browser that only displays valid markup would be a usefool tool

--
William Tasso - http://WilliamTasso.com

"William Tasso" <news27 (AT) tbdata (DOT) com> wrote:

a browser that only displays valid markup would be a usefool tool

A freudian slip? Heehee ...

--
Farlo, the Urban Fey Dragon

Bonnie Granat wrote:

Nico Schuyt wrote in message
Bonnie Granat wrote:
"Michael Hughes" wrote

I've become part of a team to redevelop
a major coporate website. I find myself
alone argueing for not using tables.
I'm looking for that one,
simple killer reason I can give to make the
case for not using them.

STAM = Saves time and money
Coding time goes down. People can do other things.
Server space needs reduced. All those table tags take up real estate
and cost money.

Well, designing in CSS/div boxes can be quite expensive too :-)

You know, I thought about that as I was writing, but decided that it
was true, anyway.

Ah well, maybe you're right. Perhaps you can save money in the maintenance
of a CSS/div-based site. On the other hand, I have had far more problems
with making a site with a CSS/div design render acceptably in all kinds of
browsers than with a design based on tables (or frames :-).
Nico

William Tasso wrote:

a browser that only displays valid markup would be a usefool tool

Serve XHTML as text/xml, application/xml or application/xhtml+xml and you
will be half way there.

All browsers *should* check these MIME types for XML well-formedness and
certainly Opera 6+ and Mozilla 0.9.4+ (and possibly earlier versions of
each!) actually *do* this.

Validating browsers (I don't know of any such browsers) should also check
the page against the DTD and catch other errors such as invalid entities,
illegal nesting (e.g. <table><div><tr><td></td></tr></div></table>) and so
on and so forth.

However, recent versions of Mozilla will validate against their own
internal DTDs (on my installation these can be found in the directory
"/usr/lib/mozilla-1.4/res/dtd/"). The internal DTDs only contain the
entity definitions, so Mozilla will only spot XML well-formedness
errors and illegal entities, but it's clearly on its way to becoming a
validating parser.

All that having been said, there is suh a beast as a web *server* that
will only serve valid markup. Google for mod_tidy.

--
Toby A Inkster BSc (Hons) ARCS
Contact Me - http://www.goddamn.co.uk/tobyink/?page=132

Sometime around Fri, 07 Nov 2003 08:02:46 +0000, Toby A Inkster is reported
to have stated:
[Links]

Does the Windows version support the mouse? (I can't imagine the mouse
working properly in a DOS box.)

To a degree, but no, not properly. The scroll wheel works, and you can
select text (then right-click to copy), but that's about it AFAICT. Perhaps
better support on Win9x (have found that with other DOS programs).

--
Mark Parnell
http://www.clarkecomputers.com.au