Sent by Christoph Päper on 20 November 2003 07:07
*claire@tanfa*:
> Dave G wrote:
>
>> <http://www.tanfa.co.uk/css/layouts/css-3-column-layout-v2.asp>
>> has the perfect layout, but man... that CSS script is crazy!
I've seen much worse.
> That layout (and I can understand your duh! about complicated CSS) was
> created from a wishlist of various people. I have decided not to do any
> further work on it as it is as you say getting very complicated,
Oh, anyhow I put a little work into it, trying to make it better
understandable. Maybe I've (re-)added quirks, though--my tests were very
limited.
<http://webdesign.crissov.de/temp/3cols/> (XHTML/HTML as browser demands)
The CSS files (either all-in-one or splitted into two) are linked therein.
> and I don't see CSS's job is to reproduce tables.
A "CSS table" is different to an "HTML table" in that it doesn't look like a
table in non-CSS browsers. When that is a wanted effect, ...
> If a table fits, use one ;)
.... this advice doesn't apply.
Of course nobody, or almost nobody, has a problem with a two or three cell
layout table, it's extensive nested and complex tables that is hateworthy.
The reason for wanting three column layouts remains beyond my understanding,
anyway.
______________________________________________________________________
css-discuss [EMAIL-REMOVED]]
http://www.css-discuss.org/mailman/listinfo/css-d
Supported by evolt.org -- http://www.evolt.org/help_support_evolt/
