Sent by Christian Heilmann on 12 December 2004 14:02
Al Sparber wrote:
> From: "Bob McClelland" [EMAIL-REMOVED]>
>
>> 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?
>
Define "some folk" please. In my experience, the ones who come up with
black or white solutions just haven't really dealt with the problem yet
and just chime in and repeat something they have read somewhere. The
above example can be solved with floating and faux columns, albeit
only properly cross-browser when you have fixed widths (percentage ones
are a pain in IE).
It is not a matter of CSS vs. Tables, as there is _no_ argument to use
tables for layout - they are there to markup tabular data in an
accessible way you won't be able to achieve with CSS.
What is the problem are the designs we try to achieve. Many problems in
web design are based on the wrong assumption that we own the browser
space and can dictate the measurements. Many times you hear the notion
that table layouts are better as they keep the column layout come rain
or bad weather, whereas floated CSS layouts wrap. What about people who
use handheld devices or simply have problems taking in multi column
layouts because of their visual impairment? With CSS layouts they can
use the site, with a rigid table layout they can't.
http://www.sitepoint.com/article/standards-sensible-design
______________________________________________________________________
css-discuss [EMAIL-REMOVED]]
http://www.css-discuss.org/mailman/listinfo/css-d
List wiki/FAQ -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/
Supported by evolt.org -- http://www.evolt.org/help_support_evolt/
