Hi Frank, and all,
----- Original Message -----
From: "Frank Barknecht" [EMAIL-REMOVED]>
> Sadly this is so true! Browsers don't show that many differences with
> <table> if at all. Well, what can I say. In a better world ...
Whilst I am all for CSS and standards and deplore the heavily nested table
stuff, it does sound, on occasions, as though the new evangelists are
becoming neurotic ("gosh! no - I <strong>can't<strong> use a table" is a
cry often heard) and I really think there is a flaw in the argument that
"tables are presentational".
If you look at:
You will see the same text a) presented in a simple table and b) presented
in divs. (The divs have no css, the table does). If you view the page
without styles, you will see that both are absolutely identical. The
conclusion is either: 1) Tables aren't 'presentational 'or 2) divs ARE! :-)
OK, I'm going over the top here, for effect, but the only difference between
tables and divs seems to be that tables are supposed to be for 'data',
according to W3C specs.
My conclusion is that, if you are really struggling, a table can sometimes
get you out of a mess (as with equal length divs, expanding to the content
of one of them, e.g.) - more to the point, it isn't such a terrible sin to
do that as some folk would have you believe. IS it?
Let me stress - I always approach design with divs in mind, and mostly I
seem to be managing it (with help!) and I think that's good, and the right
way to go. BUT - I do reckon that tables are OK if used in moderation, and
only when you are stumped! (usually because of IE5.5! :-) If all browsers
were like Firefox, all I've just said would not be relevant - but whilst we
still have to cater for IE5.x, it's a different story.
(Duck . . . !)
List wiki/FAQ -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/
Supported by evolt.org -- http://www.evolt.org/help_support_evolt/