rf said:
I think it's somewhat arrogant of you to tell me my browser is out of
date.
If I were a prospective customer I would probably just move on to the next
site in my search results.
The message that you saw is the standard disclaimer that I add for IE 6 and
under if the client doesn't want me to spend the extra time that it takes to
make things work properly in that terrible browser
Also, I think it's quite a polite disclaimer:
"You're using an out of date browser (released more than 7 years ago). While
we have taken care to ensure that this page is still usable, you will have a
much better experience with a modern, standards-compliant browser"
You have a severe case of divitus, mixed in with tables for layout.
I'll happily defend each and every one of those divs; they're all there for
a reason, some of them to semantically group related elements and some to
provide various graphical effects that couldn't be done otherwise.
You want graphically rich elastic layouts that scale nicely (try
text-zooming it, changing viewport size etc.), make use of alpha
transparency, round corners, etc. etc., that's what you have to do to ensure
that it works nicely across the board, thanks to the slow uptake of advanced
CSS. Someday perhaps it won't be so, but for now, that's what has to be
done.
I don't add divs lightly, and I've spent a lot of time working on various
techniques to minimize the amount of layout-shim-divs. However, one thing
that I won't do is force semantic elements to arbitrarily double as shims
based on their position in the markup, it makes maintenance a nightmare and
I prefer the consistency in keeping them separate, especially for sites that
are heavily server side generated as this will be.
Sure, I may find techniques in future that allow me to knock the odd div
out, but for the most part they're a necessary evil.
Don't you think saying "tables for layout" is a little disingenuous? I have
*one*, of a few rows, for the login form. It's arguable that it's even a
"layout table".
Thanks for looking but I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. I'm aware of
the issues that you mention but I did things that way for a reason, unless
you have some well considered alternatives rather than just blunt statements
against I'll leave it as it is.