Is the end of HTML as we know it?

[1001 Webs]

Every respected Web-authoring Guru says that.
This is the era of table-less design, CSS code, XHTML compliant
websites.
Separate layout from content.

There's no reason to use tables any more.
Everything can be done with CSS.
Tables are so 2002ish ...

Do you agree with that?
I don't.
I've run into many situations where I just couldn't achieve the
desired effect in different browsers without using tables.
But it could be that I'm not well versed on the intricacies of CSS ...

 

[rf]

Every respected Web-authoring Guru says that.
This is the era of table-less design, CSS code, XHTML compliant
websites.
Separate layout from content.

There's no reason to use tables any more.
Everything can be done with CSS.
Tables are so 2002ish ...

Do you agree with that?
I don't.
I've run into many situations where I just couldn't achieve the
desired effect in different browsers without using tables.

Sometimes the only way is to use a table. Sometimes. Only sometimes and only
for a very small part of a page.

One of those times is, of course, if one is offering up tabular data, which
point you seem to have missed.

But it could be that I'm not well versed on the intricacies of CSS ...

Given the site you offered up for review over at alt.html.critique I would
have to agree with this.

 

[Harlan Messinger]

Every respected Web-authoring Guru says that.
Really?

This is the era of table-less design, CSS code, XHTML compliant
websites.
Separate layout from content.

And guess what the content is marked up with? (Hint: HTML.) So either
you or whoever's prognostications you're reading is confused.

Is there some reason you had to post this two five newsgroups?

 

[mic123]

Every respected Web-authoring Guru says that.
This is the era of table-less design, CSS code, XHTML compliant
websites.
Separate layout from content.

There's no reason to use tables any more.
Everything can be done with CSS.
Tables are so 2002ish ...

Do you agree with that?
I don't.
I've run into many situations where I just couldn't achieve the
desired effect in different browsers without using tables.
But it could be that I'm not well versed on the intricacies of CSS ...

Tables are the easiest
If you need something simple use tables

 

[Chaddy2222]

Tables are the easiest
If you need something simple use tables

That's not true. CSS is simple and more powerfull then layout tables.
As an example check out this template I made.
http://freewebdesign.awardspace.biz/temp/template.html

 

[Jonathan N. Little]

Tables are the easiest
If you need something simple use tables

See if you feel that way after editing a site with a half dozen nested
tables with row and column spans...

 

[Bergamot]

There's no reason to use tables any more.
Do you agree with that?

yawn

This is a boring subject that is only brought up by clueless, lazy
people that haven't bothered reading the newsgroup archives.

I don't.
But it could be that I'm not well versed on the intricacies of CSS ...

indeed

 

[Secret Agent X]

Every respected Web-authoring Guru says that.
This is the era of table-less design, CSS code, XHTML compliant
websites.
Separate layout from content.

There's no reason to use tables any more.
Everything can be done with CSS.
Tables are so 2002ish ...

Do you agree with that?

No. On two counts:

1) Not EVERY respected web-authoring guru says that, only some.

I don't.
Ditto!

I've run into many situations where I just couldn't achieve the
desired effect in different browsers without using tables.
But it could be that I'm not well versed on the intricacies of CSS ...

Tables are appropriate for table layouts. They also work great for
some other layouts.

CSS is a distinct and separate system for suggesting colours, sizes,
margins, paddings, line spacing. typefaces, and lots of other things.
CSS and tables are as distinct as beer and wine. One does not negate
the other.

X

 

[Secret Agent X]

That's not true. CSS is simple and more powerfull then layout tables.

Rubbish!

Two columns, two rows, resizeable, cross browser compataible:

<table>
<tr>
<td> Cell one</td>
<td> Cell two</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td> Cell three</td>
<td> Cell four</td>
</tr>
</table>

That's simplicity. It's also felxible.

CSS layout is a nightmare. Unreliable, not only because it's suggested
and not required, but also because it varies between browsers and runs
into problems with resizing.

X

 

[Jerry Stuckle]

Rubbish!

Two columns, two rows, resizeable, cross browser compataible:

<table>
<tr>
<td> Cell one</td>
<td> Cell two</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td> Cell three</td>
<td> Cell four</td>
</tr>
</table>

That's simplicity. It's also felxible.

Now let's see you make it fluid.

CSS layout is a nightmare. Unreliable, not only because it's suggested
and not required, but also because it varies between browsers and runs
into problems with resizing.

X

It's not a nightmare if you understand it. And if you want something to
look *exactly* like you design it, create a PDF. I'd prefer to have
fluid designs which adjust to the size of the user's window.

--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.
(e-mail address removed)
==================

 

[Bone Ur]

Well bust mah britches and call me cheeky, on Sat, 03 Nov 2007 13:35:44 GMT
1001 Webs scribed:

Every respected Web-authoring Guru says that.
This is the era of table-less design, CSS code, XHTML compliant
websites.
Separate layout from content.

There's no reason to use tables any more.
Everything can be done with CSS.
Tables are so 2002ish ...

Do you agree with that?

I disagree with anyone who agrees with any absolute statement.
Unequivocally.

I don't.
I've run into many situations where I just couldn't achieve the
desired effect in different browsers without using tables.
But it could be that I'm not well versed on the intricacies of CSS ...

So then your opinion is based on an uncertain foundation. And the point
is...?

 

[Haines Brown]

That's not true. CSS is simple and more powerfull then layout tables.
As an example check out this template I made.
http://freewebdesign.awardspace.biz/temp/template.html

While I agree with you that CSS adequately provides for layout, your
example not impressive.

On my browsers (galeon, iceweasel), there were anamolies. The left
panel is shifted down about 0.5em from the right panel. That is, there
is a yellow space between it and the "header", which the right panel
lacks. As a result, not only is there a perhaps undesired yellow space
below the left panel and the footer that is wider than that below the
right panel.

Apparently it is the result of using the KompoZer utility, and it does
not speak much for it. The stylesheet looks confused (the navbar div
seems to be within the header div). As a template, should not the
margins be omitted, or at least set ot defaults?

 

[dorayme]

Secret Agent X wrote:

Now let's see you make it fluid.

Perhaps you define the term for him as accurately as possible so
that he can take up the challenge.

 

[Roy A.]

While I agree with you that CSS adequately provides for layout, your
example not impressive.

That's the best thing you get until you have to nest those divs.

On my browsers (galeon, iceweasel), there were anamolies. The left
panel is shifted down about 0.5em from the right panel. That is, there
is a yellow space between it and the "header", which the right panel
lacks. As a result, not only is there a perhaps undesired yellow space
below the left panel and the footer that is wider than that below the
right panel.

Even the a simple table is better.

 

[1001 Webs]

Sometimes the only way is to use a table. Sometimes. Only sometimes and only
for a very small part of a page.

One of those times is, of course, if one is offering up tabular data, which
point you seem to have missed.

Tabular data cannot be displayed with CSS?

Given the site you offered up for review over at alt.html.critique I would
have to agree with this.

Be more specific, please

 

[1001 Webs]

And guess what the content is marked up with? (Hint: HTML.) So either
you or whoever's prognostications you're reading is confused.

W3 recommends the use of CSS
CSS implementation is actually more than 10 years old.
As far back as 17 December 1996 W3C published CSS level 1
Recommendation (CSS1):
http://www.w3.org/Press/CSS1-REC-PR.html

"The design community has confirmed that using CSS promotes beauty
while making it easier and less expensive to build sites, " said Bert
Bos, W3C Style Activity Lead and one of the original co-authors of the
specification that became CSS level 1, published on 17 December 1996.
http://www.w3.org/Style/CSS10/reactions.html

Is there some reason you had to post this two five newsgroups?

A very good one, in my humble opinion: because it's relevant to all of
them.
I always like to get second opinions, specially from people who are in
the field.

 

[1001 Webs]

yawn

This is a boring subject that is only brought up by clueless, lazy
people that haven't bothered reading the newsgroup archives.

All depends on what newsgroup archives you bother to read, you know?

indeed

And I presume you certainly are?
Ain't you?

 

[1001 Webs]

Well bust mah britches and call me cheeky, on Sat, 03 Nov 2007 13:35:44 GMT
1001 Webs scribed:




I disagree with anyone who agrees with any absolute statement.
Unequivocally.

Then you have to disagree with absolute positioning as well.

So then your opinion is based on an uncertain foundation. And the point
is...?

No point.
It was a question, a doubt.
Let me rephrase it:
Is the Internet world ready to adapt CSS in all its glory and get rid
of tables and all that deprecated stuff?
.... or something like that ...

 

[Bergamot]

Tabular data cannot be displayed with CSS?

You could, but why would you want to? Tables are intended for tabular
data. Use the right markup for the job.

 

[Travis Newbury]

It's not a nightmare if you understand it.

True, but CSS != fluid design

And if you want something to
look *exactly* like you design it, create a PDF.

That is not true at all. While it may not look exactly the same on
100% of the visitors, you can design it to look the same on the
overwhelming majority of visitors. If it were not this way the
corporate world would be rushing to use fluid design. But they
aren't, they are using fixed width. Because that is what people want,
and that is what best suits the corporate world.

I'd prefer to have
fluid designs which adjust to the size of the user's window.

And the key to your statement is "I'd prefer...."

I prefer fixed width. So why is what I prefer wrong, and what you
prefer right?

It isn't. It is a preference. Neither of us is right or wrong.