Yeah, CSS is nice and all that, but until they come up with something as clean as tables,
Excuse me, are we living in the same universe? You can argue that more browsers support tables. You can argue tables are easier to use. You can argue that they're more effective. But CLEAN? Clean is the one attribute I would not apply to a morass of semi-randomly nested tables.
| [reply] |
Ahh, but they're not semi-randomly nested, as you so eloquently put it. They're semi-randomly mashed together! :-)
Seriously, though, tables have 3 tags - <table>, <tr>, and <td>. (Yeah, <th> exists, but it's just a special case of <tr>.) I glanced over the CSS implementation of tables and it looked to be at least twice as complicated.
Yes, I will freely admit that you can do more with CSS tables than you can with HTML tables, including thinking in columns instead of just rows. (<tc>, anyone?) And, yes, I will learn how to do tables in CSS and gladly convert to tables in CSS for those reasons. But, not until the cost-benefit ratio is skewed more toward CSS than it is now.
------
We are the carpenters and bricklayers of the Information Age.
Then there are Damian modules.... *sigh* ... that's not about being less-lazy -- that's about being on some really good drugs -- you know, there is no spoon. - flyingmoose
| [reply] |
You don't use "CSS tables" for layout with CSS. You don't use tables at all [for layout -- ed.]. The whole point is that tables are for tabular data, not for layout. With proper CSS, you define the structure of the document, using all the tags that HTML gives. Once the document is nicely structured, using CSS to arrange the layout and style is usually straightforward, and can be downright fun. Compared to using extensive tables, spacer gifs, etc to "trick" browsers into cooperating, good CSS is a dream.
| [reply] |