dorayme said:Data? Around a picture? In a table? What will it prove to show
text flowing around a pic in a table cell? If I can show you a
table with a cell that has a pic in it with text flowing around
it, will you then give up saying that "tables cannot really be
fluid"? Are you just going to use the word "really" as a licence
never to revise your statement and just keep hinting at its truth
instead of enlarging on it so that what *you* mean is clearer?
Just for the record, I do not think it is a good idea in general
these days to be using tables for making new pages (using them
for tabular data is another matter of course).
Jerry Stuckle said:Just for the record - you asked for an example. I gave you one. There
are dozens more.
dorayme said:First, I did not ask 'for an example'. Second, where is the
example you claim to have given? And what exactly is it an
example of? And you have not answered the question I asked you
about what it would prove if *I* gave *you* a table with a cell
that had a picture with text wrapped around.
Look, I am not interested if you are merely saying something that
is somehow supposed to be a placeholder for all the pros of
semantic markup and good css styling. Even if you could rub a few
words together and do this, you would be preaching to the
converted. You made a claim that tables cannot be "really fluid"
and I was merely asking what *you* meant by this. I can think of
a few meanings, some of which support your claim and some not.
Jerry Stuckle said:You wanted to know what I mean when I say a table can't be fluid. I
gave you an example.
Sherman said:You declare that, do you? Who died and made you King of Usenet?
dorayme said:Look, it seems that we are on different wavelengths here. In my
understanding, an example of something that cannot exist cannot
be given. So why don't you be a little more precise in your words
and thoughts. It does no good endlessly repeating your same very
few words.
I have in mind that you may have some misconceptions, that you
are rolling a whole lot of concepts into the idea of fluid and it
is you who should be sorting all this out, considering it is you
who is making the big claim. Table based layout can easily be
user friendly in respect to using the size of the screen. A
simple example is a 100% wide table that has 2 columns, one that
is enough to hold a navigation list, the other for all the
content. That is a table layout. It is plenty fluid in many
senses of the word. Naturally, if you are meaning that a table
layout cannot involve css or em based or % dimensioning and has
to involve tables within tables and whatever then you are putting
up a straw man. That discussion is long dead.
Jerry Stuckle said:No, I gave you an example of a fluid design which can be easily
accomplished in CSS, but not with tables.
No, I'm not.
Fluid design is much more than setting a table to 100%
width of the window. That concept is from the 90's.
Nowadays fluid layouts can adjust to text size, window size. Content
isn't limited to just the two columns you mention - in fact, content can
wrap around the navigation area. Images in the window can have text
wrapped around them. And a whole bunch more that goes into a true fluid
design.
dorayme said:You *gave* no such thing. You asked me to wrap data around a
picture (whatever that means and it could mean a whole bunch of
things). That is not giving a fluid design.
No you are not what?
And who suggested any such thing? Not me.
You are now just babbling trendy talk and being totally
imprecise.
Did you ever notice that most of what the w3c recommends is a restriction
rather than an enhancement? Such policies are supposed to make things work
better, which they may do about half the time - maybe. From what I recall,
one cannot use the javascript method "document.write" in xhtml
and you have to put something like [[CDATA && ]] (?) near the element terminators.
Another of my favorites is the requirement of slash terminators for
unclosed elements.
That's not the point. CSS CAN be fluid design. Tables cannot really be
fluid.
Read what I said. Then respond with some intelligence.
If it doesn't look "exactly the same on 100% of the visitors", it isn't
exactly the same, is it?
Not at all. Any *competent* webmaster would be able to do such.
So do most graphic designers I know. And that's fine for a piece of
paper. But it's shows complete incompetence on the web, which is a
fluid layout.
It is a lack of competence on your part.
Just for the record - you asked for an example. I gave you one. There
are dozens more.
Travis said:So what, sites do not have to be fluid.
100% the same is irrelevant in the big picture. That is my point.
In your opinion.
In your opinion...
Funny, I see it the opposite.
Look, it seems that we are on different wavelengths here.
You wanted to know what I mean when I say a table can't be fluid. I
gave you an example.
Let's see you wrap text around am image using tables and NO CSS.
No, I'm not. Fluid design is much more than setting a table to 100%
width of the window. That concept is from the 90's.
Nope, you're just trying to change the subject, turning it away from
questions you can't answer.
I've finally come to the conclusion you're just a stoopid troll.
<plonk>
Yep, and obviously you're completely incompetent. You've already proven
that multiple times.
No go troll someplace else.
Travis said:Plonk me PLEASE for the love of God PLONK ME!!!!
Travis said:Plonk me PLEASE for the love of God PLONK ME!!!!
It's funny. Incompetent asses like you can add nothing to the
conversation. Just like you haven't.
Just shows how big of a troll you are.
And no, I don't like to pick fights. I just don't put up with trolls,
assholes and idiots. And you match all three.
And you're even incompetent when you're a troll, asshole and idiot!
Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?
You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments. After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.