«

http://www.sitepoint.com/forums/prin...1&page=1&pp=25

No little voices here...



Cheers...

On Thu, 11 Nov 2004 08:28:40 +0800, Henry <>
declared in alt.html:

> http://www.sitepoint.com/forums/prin...1&page=1&pp=25

You mean http://www.sitepoint.com/article/tables-vs-css ?

The link you gave was to discussion about that article.

--
Mark Parnell
http://www.clarkecomputers.com.au
"Never drink rum&coke whilst reading usenet" - rf 2004

Mark Parnell wrote:
> On Thu, 11 Nov 2004 08:28:40 +0800, Henry <>
> declared in alt.html:
>
>
>>http://www.sitepoint.com/forums/prin...1&page=1&pp=25
>
>
> You mean http://www.sitepoint.com/article/tables-vs-css ?
>
> The link you gave was to discussion about that article.


Yes!

On the forum Sergio Villarreal is also discussing his method and he
admits, that he is not the best when comes to... tables.

Also he didn't used css at all and he use <font> a lot.

In other words, his css free job is crap while css is not bad but he
should spend a lot of time polishing it in order to achieve a
compatibility he had with tables.

If you would read (heaps of reading, I agree...) more, you will find the
best solution for the web at this moment, I mean with IE and his
horrible bugs.

For me the solution is, use both to achieve the best results and the
best compatibility with most browser without spending many hours
fighting IE bugs.

There are plenty of you guys to fight with these ones and I'll rather
miss it!



I can still have tables with css and be compatible with almost all browsers.

http://academ.hvcc.edu/~kantopet/xht...t=xhtml+tables

If new IE 7 will hit the market and will be bug free, than I will move
into full css layouts, if bugs will be removed. If not... I'll keep
going with the MIX, tables and css, using the best of both worlds.

What I loved reading that discussion, was well balanced.

The factor totally unknown at alt.html where freaks of css' are running
the show and no one has right to even think different way.



Cheers...