«

Almost all the many pages on my website look something like this
http://www.jimscot.pwp.blueyonder.co...s_14_wave.html
Is there any advantage to doing away with the 'table' as a placeholder?
If so, could someone please show me how to do it?
--
Jim S
Tyneside UK
www.jimscott.co.uk

On Oct 1, 6:01 am, Jim S <j...@jimXscott.co.uk> wrote:
> Almost all the many pages on my website look something like thishttp://www.jimscot.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Jims_pictures/Jimspics_14_wav...
> Is there any advantage to doing away with the 'table' as a placeholder?

The rants against tables are way overblown, IMO. Yes, I avoid tables,
and there's a lot of practical "theory" about why you shouldn't use
them for layout, and they all make great points. There are, however,
cases where even the most creative use of "div" and css doesn't work,
especially on all browsers. So then they think hacks to make IE look
right are better than tables. I don't.

One of the horrible things about browser capability/compatibility is
that vertical centering often simply doesn't work at all. In fact,
even horizontal centering has a lot catches depending on how you do
it. I was accused, when last I argued about this, of using
"pathological" cases to show why DIV doesn't always work when, in
fact, it was for a specific project I was working on. Especially
with "dynamic" content (like on your pages - you want to use the same
page structure, but some of your images might be wider or landscape as
opposed to portrait, so you can't just use some of the CSS hacks and
always have it centered). I was actually told I should be using
scripting to dynamicall modify the CSS in that case. Uh.... no, not
when I can do it with a simple table.

My opinion is that a very SIMPLE table for layout (not the nested
table within nested table nightmares) is not such a horrible thing.

Well bust mah britches and call me cheeky, on Mon, 01 Oct 2007 10:01:49
GMT Jim S scribed:

> Almost all the many pages on my website look something like this
> http://www.jimscot.pwp.blueyonder.co...mspics_14_wave.
> html Is there any advantage to doing away with the 'table' as a
> placeholder? If so, could someone please show me how to do it?

I pretty much agree with Fred and think you'll invariably _need_ a table
for vertical "middling". But, oh, the disappointment! _Transitional_??
You a coward, just lazy, or what?

--
Neredbojias
Half lies are worth twice as much as whole lies.

On 01 Oct 2007 19:09:35 GMT, Neredbojias wrote:

> Well bust mah britches and call me cheeky, on Mon, 01 Oct 2007 10:01:49
> GMT Jim S scribed:
>
>> Almost all the many pages on my website look something like this
>> http://www.jimscot.pwp.blueyonder.co...mspics_14_wave.
>> html Is there any advantage to doing away with the 'table' as a
>> placeholder? If so, could someone please show me how to do it?
>
> I pretty much agree with Fred and think you'll invariably _need_ a table
> for vertical "middling". But, oh, the disappointment! _Transitional_??
> You a coward, just lazy, or what?

<g>
My other website is Strict
I cannot get tables to occupy the full HEIGHT using Strict or I would.
--
Jim S
Tyneside UK
www.jimscott.co.uk

In article <t26fb9rfiguy$.>,
Jim S <> wrote:

> Almost all the many pages on my website look something like this
> http://www.jimscot.pwp.blueyonder.co...s_14_wave.html
> Is there any advantage to doing away with the 'table' as a placeholder?
> If so, could someone please show me how to do it?

"table as a placeholder" presumably means "table for layout". I
mention this to help you search the many times this has been
discussed here. There are several things that you could be asking
here:

(1) Why is table for layout bad in general? (you won't get too
much these days from many experts here because they would be
tired of answering this). Yes, there are advantages, they are of
a *general kind*, it has been greatly discussed.

(2) Is it worth changing a table layout site to one that conforms
to better practise? If it is an evolving site, and will have a
future, be updated regularly and get new sections etc, yes, it
will gain all the advantages from accruing from the above. If it
is not, if it is a legacy piece, still of interest, if it is also
large and complicated, the answer is probably not.

(3) As for your particular page above, it is an example of many,
the changes would be very easy and useful because you might
improve some things while at it - for example, in Safari, the fwd
and back buttons are way down at the bottom of a page. The
caption is way down from the pic. It looks odd on a big screen
and involves greater travel for the mouse. Making a page for
these pics with a caption, and forward and back button would be
very simple, involve less code (less css and less html) than what
you have. I would be happy to give you a demo if you are
interested as I am sure would others.

---------
btw, in your css you have an unwanted character before your
table.sample { (i>>?table.sample {)

--
dorayme

Jim S <> wrote:
news:1qjq4gtnlte6o$.:

> On 01 Oct 2007 19:09:35 GMT, Neredbojias wrote:
[snip]
>> I pretty much agree with Fred and think you'll invariably _need_ a
>> table for vertical "middling". But, oh, the disappointment!
>> _Transitional_?? You a coward, just lazy, or what?
>
> <g>
> My other website is Strict
> I cannot get tables to occupy the full HEIGHT using Strict or I would.

4.01 Strict example:
http://bootnic.atwebpages.com/100PercentTableHeight.php

--
BootNic Monday October 1, 2007 6:17 PM
"This seems like a case where we need to shoot the messenger."
*Charlie Kaufman on Cypherpunks list*

"" <> writes:

> On Oct 1, 6:01 am, Jim S <j...@jimXscott.co.uk> wrote:
>> Almost all the many pages on my website look something like thishttp://www.jimscot.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Jims_pictures/Jimspics_14_wav...
>> Is there any advantage to doing away with the 'table' as a placeholder?
>
> The rants against tables are way overblown, IMO. Yes, I avoid tables,
> and there's a lot of practical "theory" about why you shouldn't use
> them for layout, and they all make great points. There are, however,
> cases where even the most creative use of "div" and css doesn't work,
> especially on all browsers. So then they think hacks to make IE look
> right are better than tables. I don't.

Agreed.

The key reason to avoid layout tables is that it makes for cleaner markup,
simplifying both initial development and maintenance. Some people confuse
the end with the means, though, and insist on avoiding tables even when
cross-browser issues make the alternative far more complicated.

sherm--

--
Web Hosting by West Virginians, for West Virginians: http://wv-www.net
Cocoa programming in Perl: http://camelbones.sourceforge.net

BootNic wrote:
> Jim S <> wrote:
> news:1qjq4gtnlte6o$.:
>
>> My other website is Strict
>> I cannot get tables to occupy the full HEIGHT using Strict or I would.
>
> 4.01 Strict example:
> <http://bootnic.atwebpages.com/100PercentTableHeight.php>

God, I hate pages which won't scroll with the mousewheel.

Why overflow:auto?

--
John
Pondering the value of the UIP: http://improve-usenet.org/

BootNic wrote:
> Jim S <> wrote:
> news:1qjq4gtnlte6o$.:
>
>> On 01 Oct 2007 19:09:35 GMT, Neredbojias wrote:
> [snip]
>>> I pretty much agree with Fred and think you'll invariably _need_ a
>>> table for vertical "middling". But, oh, the disappointment!
>>> _Transitional_?? You a coward, just lazy, or what?
>> <g>
>> My other website is Strict
>> I cannot get tables to occupy the full HEIGHT using Strict or I would.
>
> 4.01 Strict example:
> http://bootnic.atwebpages.com/100PercentTableHeight.php
>
Hmmm interesting... no mater the window size even at 1536px tall *still*
has a vertical scroll bar!

--
Take care,

Jonathan
-------------------
LITTLE WORKS STUDIO
http://www.LittleWorksStudio.com

On Tue, 02 Oct 2007 08:06:44 +1000, dorayme wrote:

> In article <t26fb9rfiguy$.>,
> Jim S <> wrote:
>
>> Almost all the many pages on my website look something like this
>> http://www.jimscot.pwp.blueyonder.co...s_14_wave.html
>> Is there any advantage to doing away with the 'table' as a placeholder?
>> If so, could someone please show me how to do it?
>
> "table as a placeholder" presumably means "table for layout". I
> mention this to help you search the many times this has been
> discussed here. There are several things that you could be asking
> here:
>
> (1) Why is table for layout bad in general? (you won't get too
> much these days from many experts here because they would be
> tired of answering this). Yes, there are advantages, they are of
> a *general kind*, it has been greatly discussed.
>
> (2) Is it worth changing a table layout site to one that conforms
> to better practise? If it is an evolving site, and will have a
> future, be updated regularly and get new sections etc, yes, it
> will gain all the advantages from accruing from the above. If it
> is not, if it is a legacy piece, still of interest, if it is also
> large and complicated, the answer is probably not.
>
> (3) As for your particular page above, it is an example of many,
> the changes would be very easy and useful because you might
> improve some things while at it - for example, in Safari, the fwd
> and back buttons are way down at the bottom of a page. The
> caption is way down from the pic. It looks odd on a big screen
> and involves greater travel for the mouse. Making a page for
> these pics with a caption, and forward and back button would be
> very simple, involve less code (less css and less html) than what
> you have. I would be happy to give you a demo if you are
> interested as I am sure would others.
>
> ---------
> btw, in your css you have an unwanted character before your
> table.sample { (i>>?table.sample {)

Not here I haven't.

Anyhow, yes I am asking for a demo.
I simply have never been able to find a simpler way of presenting the
pictures in a way that keeps them within the bounds of an 800x600 layout
(and bigger), centralised. The buttons are meant to be in the lowest bottom
corners of the screen.
--
Jim S
Tyneside UK
www.jimscott.co.uk