Coffeehouse Thread

19 posts

Forum Read Only

This forum has been made read only by the site admins. No new threads or comments can be added.

The only reason table-less layouts are bad.

Back to Forum: Coffeehouse
  • User profile image
    W3bbo
  • User profile image
    blowdart

    W3bbo wrote:


    I got told last week there was one case where you still had to use table layouts, but never managed to get an explanation of what that case was. The person concerned was very peeved that he was forced to use them.

  • User profile image
    blowdart

    W3bbo wrote:


    BTW you been looking at how asp.net 2 renders stuff?

  • User profile image
    Cairo

    I would think that a table layout is fine for tabular information.


  • User profile image
    Stitch 2.0

    OK/Cancel wrote:

    Somehow in the last couple years, everyone seems to have decided that TABLES are no good. Despite the fact that they’ve been around forever and provide a stable way to implement a layout for all browsers, they have somehow fallen out of favor.
    [...]
     Finally, content has been set free to flow to any device, and be seen in dozens of ways the designers never intended.


    Hehe, he's got a point there Wink

  • User profile image
    Deactivated User

    Comment removed at user's request.

  • User profile image
    JChung2006

    Cute comic. Smiley

    From what I have read, tables don't render well on phones and other small-screen devices.

    Tables are fine but many people used (abused) them in their attempts to control HTML layout by using fixed table column and row sizes to position items on a page.  This is a technique from the days before CSS was around.

    That is why CSS culture is hostile to tables.

  • User profile image
    W3bbo

    JChung2006 wrote:
    That is why CSS culture is hostile to tables.

    Not really.

    We XHTML/CSS guys are against tables for layout not because of their effects, but because they're not semantically pure.

  • User profile image
    ScanIAm

    W3bbo wrote:
    JChung2006 wrote: That is why CSS culture is hostile to tables.

    Not really.

    We XHTML/CSS guys are against tables for layout not because of their effects, but because they're not semantically pure.


    You're so elitist Smiley

  • User profile image
    DoomBringer

    Yes, tables look like crap on small screens.  Fixed width is right out.
    And from my (brief) experience as a web designer (JSPs from hell!) I can say that all browsers suck.

  • User profile image
    TommyCarlier

    I don't think all browsers suck. Opera manages to make websites look good, even if they use tables for layout, even on small screens. They first invented Small-screen rendering (SSR), specifically for very small screens (PDAs), then they expanded that idea to their new technology: Fit-to-window rendering. This eliminates horizontal scrollbars and tries to render a page to look great on ANY size of screen.

  • User profile image
    Pimp Daddy

    Tables should only be used for data - nothing else.

    Use <div>'s for layout, <span> for text and CSS for styling.

    That's what the specifications say. You should always follow the W3C guidelines.

    End of story.

  • User profile image
    blowdart

    Pimp Daddy wrote:
    Tables should only be used for data - nothing else.

    Use <div>'s for layout, <span> for text and CSS for styling.

    That's what the specifications say. You should always follow the W3C guidelines.

    End of story.


    <blink>Standards?</blink>

    Smiley

  • User profile image
    W3bbo

    Pimp Daddy wrote:
    Use <div>'s for layout, <span> for text and CSS for styling.


    Free your mind Smiley

    You can style and layout /any/ element in XHTML/CSS regardless of its tagname. Most people just use <div> for block-level styling and <span> for inline because they're both semantically neutral.

    Although not entirely. <div> was originally intended to markup document divisions.

  • User profile image
    blowdart

    W3bbo wrote:

    You can style and layout /any/ element in XHTML/CSS regardless of its tagname.


    And cross your fingers it'll display in IE5.

    Took me freaking ages to get IE5 working correctly for a master page I'm doing.

  • User profile image
    W3bbo

    blowdart wrote:
    And cross your fingers it'll display in IE5.


    I've abandoned IE5, if it works in IE5.5 I'm happy. There were big improvements in IE5.5 anyway.

  • User profile image
    blowdart

    W3bbo wrote:
    blowdart wrote:And cross your fingers it'll display in IE5.
    I've abandoned IE5, if it works in IE5.5 I'm happy. There were big improvements in IE5.5 anyway.


    Same fix worked for both, and I was feeling bored and discovered a base Win2k VPC, so I thought I'd try it.

    Heh.

    God knows what it looks like on a mac though

  • User profile image
    W3bbo

    blowdart wrote:
    God knows what it looks like on a mac though


    Probably like it does in IE6, Tasman (the engine behind IE-for-Mac) complied with spec. IIRC, it was the first engine to fully support CSS1.

Conversation locked

This conversation has been locked by the site admins. No new comments can be made.