Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Programming > HTML > Re: Why CSS is better than HTML Table?

Reply
Thread Tools

Re: Why CSS is better than HTML Table?

 
 
Martin Edwards
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      04-02-2012
On 02/04/2012 04:49, se wrote:
>
> "Gene Wirchenko" <(E-Mail Removed)> skrev i meddelelsen
> news:(E-Mail Removed)...
>> On Mon, 2 Apr 2012 00:45:11 +0000 (UTC), http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/(E-Mail Removed) (Edward A.
>> Falk) wrote:
>>
>>> In article <(E-Mail Removed)-hannover.de>,
>>> Andreas Prilop <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>>> On Sat, 31 Mar 2012, Alan_Smith wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> There are some reasons why CSS is better than HTML table:
>>>>
>>>> I believe quantum mechanics is better than surgery.
>>>
>>> Maybe, but Fanny Dooley still likes CSS and hates Tables.

>>
>> I use CSS in my tables. And why not? They are two different
>> things for two different purposes.
>>
>> Sincerely,
>>
>> Gene Wirchenko

>
> Yeah, exactly; That's it. Prophets on newsgroups trying to build up
> lack of self-confidence - he's a pain.
> /se
>
>
>

Nobody said I'd be a blue charioteer every time.

--
Myth, after all, is what we believe naturally. History is what we must
painfully learn and struggle to remember. -Albert Goldman
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Jonathan N. Little
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      04-02-2012
Jukka K. Korpela wrote:
> 2012-04-01 13:23, Martin Edwards wrote:
>
>> Tables should be used for tables. Used for anything else they are
>> a confounded nuisance.

>
> The most vulgar forms of the anti-table-movement tend to attack
> undeniable tabular data too, requiring minced tag approaches (div, div,
> div, span, span, span, with loads of tricky, kludgy, and unreliable CSS
> code) to them as well.


I agree with you here. I prefer to avoid the table as a layout scaffold
with the flexibility that the "promise" that CSS can provide. That said,
anti-table-movement that results in DIViditis is like the prescription
drug that is worst than the disease.


> In the more educated circles, there are endless debates of what is a
> "real table" or "tabular data". What you call a table tells more about
> you than the data. This makes the vulgar form somewhat reasonable. Why
> waste time on cutting hairs when you can spend it on coding?


Agree with your point, and not to diminish it, just a
point-of-information I think the English idiom you were going for was
"splitting hairs"

>
> It's usually pointless to debate against the anti-table-movement, in any
> of its form. Just as it is pointless to debate on religion or to fight
> against superstitions.


So true.

>
> The real problem with using tables for layout was the complexity of the
> designs and the requirements on pixel-exactness. In most cases, the div
> + CSS school has just made the situation worse. They keep repeating
> dogmas they learned from somewhere, without ever stopping to cite any
> factual evidence. The most honest of their dogmas is "layout tables are
> outdated".
>


Also agree. A layout with scores of nested container DIVs and countless
CLASSes and IDs coupled with a stylesheet that rivals the size of the
documents in my opinion is as much a horror show to maintain than a
vintage 90's style nested-table disaster.

As I said I prefer the flexibility of CSS and now with the better basic
support finally obtained by the glacial-paced improvements in MSIE it
makes CSS an easier choice, (again for me). But for many a table will
just make it easier for them to invasion and layout their site. Go for
it! I would say though if you find the need to nest tables to get what
you wish, then it is time to stop and reaccess your approach.

What I think bothers me most about table-layout designers is they
generally micro-manage the page real-estate with static dimensions and
fixed and all too often miniscule base font sizes. To be fair the
anti-tableists are guilty of this too, but at least *sometimes* their
containers are flexible. Now with smartphones, tablets, netbooks,
laptops, and in my case multiple-monitored desktops all accessing
websites, I think designing for a specific screen resolution,
window-size, OS, or browser is the real problem.


--
Take care,

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

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Re: Why CSS is better than HTML Table? richard HTML 3 04-01-2012 10:25 AM
Re: Why CSS is better than HTML Table? se HTML 1 04-01-2012 10:24 AM
Re: Why CSS is better than HTML Table? Beauregard T. Shagnasty HTML 0 03-31-2012 04:46 PM
findcontrol("PlaceHolderPrice") why why why why why why why why why why why Mr. SweatyFinger ASP .Net 2 12-02-2006 03:46 PM
Is splint really better than lint? Is there a better tool than splint? Peter Bencsik C Programming 2 09-21-2006 10:02 PM



Advertisments