«

OK, I give in. Tell me why some people on this group gasp and throw up
their hands when tables are used? Is there something I don't know
about? Did they decide to remove tables support from the new browsers?

I'm just trying to understand the distaste for tables.

-Chuck. (www.wormspeaker.com)
__________________________________________________ ___
Spread love and understanding...
but don't be afraid to bloody your knuckles doing it.
-Alex Ross

Chuck wrote:

> OK, I give in. Tell me why some people on this group gasp and throw up
> their hands when tables are used? Is there something I don't know
> about? Did they decide to remove tables support from the new browsers?
>
> I'm just trying to understand the distaste for tables.
>
> -Chuck. (www.wormspeaker.com)
> __________________________________________________ ___
> Spread love and understanding...
> but don't be afraid to bloody your knuckles doing it.
> -Alex Ross

People are complaining because tables were designed for tabular data
rather than page layout, I personally can't see the big deal, done
properly it works, and not all browsers support CSS yet, even the apache
group (www.apache.org) use tables for layout.

~Cameron

"Chuck" <chuck-> wrote in message
news:...
>
> OK, I give in. Tell me why some people on this group gasp and throw up
> their hands when tables are used? Is there something I don't know
> about? Did they decide to remove tables support from the new browsers?
>
> I'm just trying to understand the distaste for tables.
>
> -Chuck. (www.wormspeaker.com)

*puts on asbestos overcoat*

Its not the end of the world if you use tables or if you don't use CSS or if
your site doesn't 100% validate. Check any of the 'big guys' sites
(microsoft, eBay, etc.) and you'll find they don't validate, probably use
tables and have alot of other imperfections. Its like anything geeks
do...they love to argue about THE proper way something should be done.

*waits for the deluge of comments telling me how horrible my site is*

--Tina

--
http://www.AffordableHOST.com
20% Discount Code: newsgroup
We transfer time from your current host!
Serving the web since 1997

Cameron wrote:

<snip>
> People are complaining because tables were designed for tabular data
> rather than page layout, I personally can't see the big deal, done
> properly it works, and not all browsers support CSS yet, even the apache
> group (www.apache.org) use tables for layout.
>
> ~Cameron
>
>

<trivial>
sorry, the "Apache Software Foundation"
</trivial>

~Cameron

Tina - AffordableHOST.com wrote:

> "Chuck" <chuck-> wrote in message
> news:...
>
>>OK, I give in. Tell me why some people on this group gasp and throw up
>>their hands when tables are used? Is there something I don't know
>>about? Did they decide to remove tables support from the new browsers?
>>
>>I'm just trying to understand the distaste for tables.
>>
>>-Chuck. (www.wormspeaker.com)
>
>
> *puts on asbestos overcoat*
>
> Its not the end of the world if you use tables or if you don't use CSS or if
> your site doesn't 100% validate. Check any of the 'big guys' sites
> (microsoft, eBay, etc.) and you'll find they don't validate, probably use
> tables and have alot of other imperfections. Its like anything geeks
> do...they love to argue about THE proper way something should be done.
>
> *waits for the deluge of comments telling me how horrible my site is*
>
> --Tina
>

Actually, not looked at source but your page looks rather good, however
Powered by FreeBSD and Powered by Redhat? what is what, and if you use
both why diminish the awesome power of FreeBSD with Redhat?

~Cameron

On Fri, 09 Jan 2004 19:41:40 GMT, chuck- (Chuck) wrote:

: OK, I give in. Tell me why some people on this group gasp and throw up
: their hands when tables are used? Is there something I don't know
: about? Did they decide to remove tables support from the new browsers?
:
: I'm just trying to understand the distaste for tables.


There is none. Want to have dinner, use a table! Love it.

Sid

"Cameron" <> wrote in message
news:btn0lj$b7m$...
> Tina - AffordableHOST.com wrote:
>
> > "Chuck" <chuck-> wrote in message
> > news:...
> >
> >>OK, I give in. Tell me why some people on this group gasp and throw up
> >>their hands when tables are used? Is there something I don't know
> >>about? Did they decide to remove tables support from the new browsers?
> >>
> >>I'm just trying to understand the distaste for tables.
> >>
> >>-Chuck. (www.wormspeaker.com)
> >
> >
> > *puts on asbestos overcoat*
> >
> > Its not the end of the world if you use tables or if you don't use CSS
or if
> > your site doesn't 100% validate. Check any of the 'big guys' sites
> > (microsoft, eBay, etc.) and you'll find they don't validate, probably
use
> > tables and have alot of other imperfections. Its like anything geeks
> > do...they love to argue about THE proper way something should be done.

> >
> > *waits for the deluge of comments telling me how horrible my site is*
> >
> > --Tina
> >
>
> Actually, not looked at source but your page looks rather good, however
> Powered by FreeBSD and Powered by Redhat? what is what, and if you use
> both why diminish the awesome power of FreeBSD with Redhat?
>
> ~Cameron


Thanks for the compliment!

Our site runs on 2 dedicated servers (not Cpanel), which have no other
hosting accounts on them. Both of these servers use FreeBSD exclusively.

However, we offer Cpanel hosting accounts...and all of our Cpanel servers
use RedHat. Cpanel will work with FreeBSD, but CPanel doesn't support it
and (I've heard) there are problems.

I tried to separate the 2 logos by moving the FreeBSD away from the others.
Hoping it would make more sense.

--Tina

--
http://www.AffordableHOST.com
20% Discount Code: newsgroup
We transfer time from your current host!
Serving the web since 1997

Chuck wrote:


> OK, I give in. Tell me why some people on this group gasp and throw up
> their hands when tables are used? Is there something I don't know
> about? Did they decide to remove tables support from the new browsers?

> I'm just trying to understand the distaste for tables.

> -Chuck. (www.wormspeaker.com)
> __________________________________________________ ___
> Spread love and understanding...
> but don't be afraid to bloody your knuckles doing it.
> -Alex Ross


Tables were originally designed as the "ONLY" way to do presentation.
CSS comes along and suddenly those that approve of it's use, say tables are
not to be used for presentation.

I made a comment just the other day at how horrible msn.com was with their
coding and how crappy it looked.
Guess what? It's been changed royally. And not one table!

But if you go to microsoft.com, it's table city.

I think it's truly a personal choice and what you feel comfortable working
with.
At least the older browsers know how to handle tables. Don't they?

Chuck wrote:
> OK, I give in. Tell me why some people on this group gasp and throw up
> their hands when tables are used? Is there something I don't know
> about? Did they decide to remove tables support from the new browsers?
>
> I'm just trying to understand the distaste for tables.

Chuckle! You can't hope to understand. It is a holy war, not a rational
discussion.

First, no one with at least 2 brain cells to rub together objects to using
tables to represent data comprising 2 semantic dimensions. (Also known a
"tabular data"). They will be supported on the web for decades.

Second, there is no good reason to gasp (etc) about layout tables. Simple
layout tables are effective, efficient, usable, accessible, flexible, and
future-proof. (If anyone says otherwise, ask for the evidence. It won't be
convincing).

You can validate layout tables as XHTML 1.1. No browser that hopes to be
popular will dare to deny its potential users access to one of mankind's most
valuable information resources, which is overwhelmingly layout-table-oriented.
Obviously no one is going to wipe those resources off the web! Probably at
least 100,000 table-oriented pages per day are published on the web.

Modern non-visual browsers for blind people are getting better at handling
layout tables. Other browsers such as Opera in "small screen mode" can display
page using layout tables on sceens only 240 pixels wide. Obviously that trend
will continue, because browsers of all sorts *have* to be able to access that
vast global resource. There is no plausible proposal to cease support for
tables, even for layout tables.

It is a sin to use layout tables. You could fry in the web author's hell. But
if you don't believe there is a web author's hell (other than trying to find a
hack to make CSS positioning work in yet another browser), you are safe.

Some people are trying to rewrite history. Table layout helped to make the web
the exciting and successful place it is. Gosh! How bad!

--
Barry Pearson
http://www.Barry.Pearson.name/photography/
http://www.BirdsAndAnimals.info/
http://www.ChildSupportAnalysis.co.uk/

Richard wrote:
<snip>
> But if you go to microsoft.com, it's table city.
>
> I think it's truly a personal choice and what you feel comfortable working
> with.
> At least the older browsers know how to handle tables. Don't they?
>
>

Yeah, I noticed Microsoft use loads of tables for layout but I thought
www.apache.org would be a better one to point out, for obvious reasons

~Cameron