Re: I have a problem with this:

Discussion in 'HTML' started by 123Jim, Apr 24, 2010.

  1. 123Jim

    123Jim Guest

    <sheldonlg> wrote in message
    news:...
    > In file www.sheldonlg.com/temp.html There is a big space between the first
    > item on in the center on the top and second item. I don't know why that
    > is happening. Any help would be appreciated.
    >
    > (There are no errors in validation and 34 of the same short-tag warning.
    > BTW, how do you get rid of that?)
    >
    > Thanks for any help.
    >
    > --
    > Shelly


    you have: clear: both;
    in div.dataBlock3Center br

    delete clear: both;
    things improve .. but the labels get out of line ..
    123Jim, Apr 24, 2010
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. 123Jim

    123Jim Guest

    <sheldonlg> wrote in message
    news:...
    > On 4/23/2010 7:40 PM, 123Jim wrote:
    >> <sheldonlg> wrote in message
    >> news:...
    >>> In file www.sheldonlg.com/temp.html There is a big space between the
    >>> first
    >>> item on in the center on the top and second item. I don't know why that
    >>> is happening. Any help would be appreciated.
    >>>
    >>> (There are no errors in validation and 34 of the same short-tag warning.
    >>> BTW, how do you get rid of that?)
    >>>
    >>> Thanks for any help.
    >>>
    >>> --
    >>> Shelly

    >>
    >> you have: clear: both;
    >> in div.dataBlock3Center br
    >>
    >> delete clear: both;
    >> things improve .. but the labels get out of line ..

    >
    > I deleted it and there was no change in appearance nor problem.
    >
    > --
    > Shelly


    I see that .. I must have deleted something else .. can't think what
    unfortunately.

    The problem I think is to do with the cascading nature of styles. for
    example try removing clear: both; from the style applied to <br> in the
    containing block labelled: class="panel-body"

    Posters here think your markup is very complex .. I guess it is .. why is it
    like that?
    123Jim, Apr 24, 2010
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. 123Jim

    123Jim Guest

    <sheldonlg> wrote in message
    news:...
    > On 4/24/2010 8:00 PM, idle wrote:
    >> On Sat, 24 Apr 2010 06:09:51 -0400, sheldonlg wrote in alt.html:
    >>
    >>> On 4/23/2010 7:40 PM, 123Jim wrote:
    >>>> <sheldonlg> wrote in message

    ..............................................
    > This example was taken from a much larger application. The other css
    > stuff handles other screens. If by "off" you mean in separate linked in
    > files, that is the way it is done the real application. I just have here
    > the "view source" for that page which shows the expanded css files.
    >>

    >
    >
    > --
    > Shelly


    remove clear: both; from

    div.panel-body br {
    clear: both;
    }
    123Jim, Apr 29, 2010
    #3
  4. sheldonlg wrote:

    > idle wrote:
    >> You should also think about moving the css off and cutting down on
    >> some of the redundancy.

    >
    > This example was taken from a much larger application. The other css
    > stuff handles other screens. If by "off" you mean in separate linked
    > in files, that is the way it is done the real application. I just
    > have here the "view source" for that page which shows the expanded
    > css files.


    While you are working on the project, why not remove the bogus HTML
    comment markers from both the CSS and the JavaScript?
    These: <!-- and -->
    There are several sets of them in the CSS, all are errors. CSS comment
    markers are: /* and */

    In the JavaScript, those things haven't been necessary since maybe, um,
    Netscape 3? Earlier?

    Oh, and:
    <http://jigsaw.w3.org/css-validator/validator?profile=css21&warning=0&uri=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.sheldonlg.com%2Ftemp.html>

    --
    -bts
    -Four wheels carry the body; two wheels move the soul
    Beauregard T. Shagnasty, Apr 29, 2010
    #4
  5. sheldonlg wrote:

    > Beauregard T. Shagnasty wrote:
    >> While you are working on the project, why not remove the bogus HTML
    >> comment markers from both the CSS and the JavaScript?
    >> These: <!-- and -->
    >> There are several sets of them in the CSS, all are errors. CSS
    >> comment markers are: /* and */

    >
    > All of those are not part of the code I am tasked to modify. On this
    > big application, the one thing I have learned from the past is only
    > change what I have been asked to change. (Yes, I agree with you, but
    > note that this is just an except of one page).


    Ok, so pass it along to the people who do work on those parts.

    >> In the JavaScript, those things haven't been necessary since maybe, um,
    >> Netscape 3? Earlier?

    >
    > It is an OLD app.


    ...and nobody is maintaining it any longer?

    >> Oh, and:
    >> <http://jigsaw.w3.org/css-validator/validator?profile=css21&warning=0&uri=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.sheldonlg.com%2Ftemp.html>

    >
    > I validated _before_ putting it up here. There were 34 warning
    > messages, all of the "SHORTTAGS" variety.


    Um... no, not really.

    --
    -bts
    -Four wheels carry the body; two wheels move the soul
    Beauregard T. Shagnasty, Apr 29, 2010
    #5
  6. sheldonlg wrote:

    > On 4/29/2010 5:02 PM, Beauregard T. Shagnasty wrote:
    > [no, he didn't...]


    > I ran into so many more problems with this formulation (such as major
    > problems when you narrowed the page and differences between IE and
    > Firefox) that I spoke to the boss. I convinced him to use tables.
    > He wanted to reserve the use of tables to only when there is actual
    > table of data being presented and not for formatting purposes.
    > Thankfully, he saw that a week of effort was not worth it.


    You have "relational data" on your test.html page, as I see it. Tables
    are appropriate. The labels and the data are related to each other.

    I see you've updated (somewhat) your page. You now have nested tables
    for columns of data. Why that? Why not use just one table with six
    columns?

    <td>Customer:</td><td>[data]</td><td>Name:</td<td>[data]</td><td>Search
    Key:</td><td>[data]</td>

    Saves a lot of confusing markup...

    --
    -bts
    -Four wheels carry the body; two wheels move the soul
    Beauregard T. Shagnasty, Apr 30, 2010
    #6
  7. 123Jim

    Jenn Guest

    "Lewis" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > In article <>,
    > sheldonlg <sheldonlg> wrote:
    >
    >> On 4/29/2010 5:02 PM, Beauregard T. Shagnasty wrote:
    >>
    >> I ran into so many more problems with this formulation (such as major
    >> problems when you narrowed the page and differences between IE and
    >> Firefox) that I spoke to the boss. I convinced him to use tables. He
    >> wanted to reserve the use of tables to only when there is actual table
    >> of data being presented and not for formatting purposes. Thankfully, he
    >> saw that a week of effort was not worth it.



    > That is what tables are FOR, presenting tabular data. They should never
    > be used for formatting.



    Why? I use tables all the time in order to get a page to format exactly
    like I want it to format.

    --
    Jenn (from Oklahoma)
    Jenn, May 1, 2010
    #7
  8. 123Jim

    dorayme Guest

    In article <hrfpmu$jum$-september.org>,
    "Jenn" <> wrote:
    >
    > > That is what tables are FOR, presenting tabular data. They should never
    > > be used for formatting.

    >
    >
    > Why? I use tables all the time in order to get a page to format exactly
    > like I want it to format.


    Here we go again, round and round the mulberry bush... which
    reminds me, have I ever given my recipe for mulberry jam here?

    --
    dorayme
    dorayme, May 1, 2010
    #8
  9. 123Jim

    Neredbojias Guest

    On 30 Apr 2010, "Jenn" <> wrote:

    >
    > "Lewis" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    >> In article <>,
    >> sheldonlg <sheldonlg> wrote:
    >>
    >>> On 4/29/2010 5:02 PM, Beauregard T. Shagnasty wrote:
    >>>
    >>> I ran into so many more problems with this formulation (such as
    >>> major problems when you narrowed the page and differences between
    >>> IE and Firefox) that I spoke to the boss. I convinced him to use
    >>> tables. He wanted to reserve the use of tables to only when there
    >>> is actual table of data being presented and not for formatting
    >>> purposes. Thankfully, he saw that a week of effort was not worth
    >>> it.

    >
    >
    >> That is what tables are FOR, presenting tabular data. They should
    >> never be used for formatting.

    >
    >
    > Why? I use tables all the time in order to get a page to format
    > exactly like I want it to format.


    Actually, in some cases I use tables for formatting and not for
    "tabular data", and the usage is quite valid in the broadest meaning of
    the word. Don't listen to the pedants but alternate means *do* exist
    for many of the things lotsa people misuse tables for.

    --
    Neredbojias

    http://www.neredbojias.org/
    http://www.neredbojias.net/
    Neredbojias, May 1, 2010
    #9
  10. 123Jim

    Jenn Guest

    "Ed Mullen" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > Jenn wrote:
    >> "Lewis"<> wrote in message
    >> news:...
    >>> In article<>,
    >>> sheldonlg<sheldonlg> wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> On 4/29/2010 5:02 PM, Beauregard T. Shagnasty wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>> I ran into so many more problems with this formulation (such as major
    >>>> problems when you narrowed the page and differences between IE and
    >>>> Firefox) that I spoke to the boss. I convinced him to use tables. He
    >>>> wanted to reserve the use of tables to only when there is actual table
    >>>> of data being presented and not for formatting purposes. Thankfully,
    >>>> he
    >>>> saw that a week of effort was not worth it.

    >>
    >>
    >>> That is what tables are FOR, presenting tabular data. They should never
    >>> be used for formatting.

    >>
    >>
    >> Why? I use tables all the time in order to get a page to format exactly
    >> like I want it to format.
    >>

    >
    >
    > Let me Google that for you ...
    >
    > http://lmgtfy.com/?q=tables html bad
    >
    > Not trying to be sarcastic, Jenn. It's just that this is a topic that has
    > been discussed ad nauseum over the years and a simple search on your part
    > would have obviated yet another lengthy discussion about about it here.
    >



    I really don't care what google says about the subject, I was more
    interested in why ya'll don't like to use tables. I've been coding for
    14yrs or more and tables generally solve most formatting problems and they
    are easier to use than CSS, while, I do like CSS, I'd never use it to format
    an entire website willingly... ever........ I'd rather use CSS for style
    sheets as far as formatting fonts, links, and such. Actually, I'd say tables
    are my specialty.....

    I've only been privy to this group for many a month, reading it off and on,
    so while some of you may have discussed this topic ad nauseum, I have never
    had that conversation with anyone before.

    --
    Jenn (from Oklahoma)
    Jenn, May 1, 2010
    #10
  11. 123Jim

    Jenn Guest

    "Neredbojias" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > On 30 Apr 2010, "Jenn" <> wrote:
    >
    >>
    >> "Lewis" <> wrote in message
    >> news:...
    >>> In article <>,
    >>> sheldonlg <sheldonlg> wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> On 4/29/2010 5:02 PM, Beauregard T. Shagnasty wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>> I ran into so many more problems with this formulation (such as
    >>>> major problems when you narrowed the page and differences between
    >>>> IE and Firefox) that I spoke to the boss. I convinced him to use
    >>>> tables. He wanted to reserve the use of tables to only when there
    >>>> is actual table of data being presented and not for formatting
    >>>> purposes. Thankfully, he saw that a week of effort was not worth
    >>>> it.



    >>> That is what tables are FOR, presenting tabular data. They should
    >>> never be used for formatting.



    >> Why? I use tables all the time in order to get a page to format
    >> exactly like I want it to format.



    > Actually, in some cases I use tables for formatting and not for
    > "tabular data", and the usage is quite valid in the broadest meaning of
    > the word. Don't listen to the pedants but alternate means *do* exist
    > for many of the things lotsa people misuse tables for.



    I use tables for everything that requires formatting a website. That's the
    way it was done from the time I ever coded my first website. It's so simple
    to use them and you can do just about anything with them. :)


    --
    Jenn (from Oklahoma)
    Jenn, May 1, 2010
    #11
  12. 123Jim

    Jenn Guest

    "dorayme" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > In article <hrfpmu$jum$-september.org>,
    > "Jenn" <> wrote:
    >>
    >> > That is what tables are FOR, presenting tabular data. They should never
    >> > be used for formatting.


    >> Why? I use tables all the time in order to get a page to format exactly
    >> like I want it to format.



    > Here we go again, round and round the mulberry bush... which
    > reminds me, have I ever given my recipe for mulberry jam here?


    okkkk ... who stuck a thorn in your foot? What's with the attitude?

    --
    Jenn (from Oklahoma)
    Jenn, May 1, 2010
    #12
  13. 123Jim

    freemont Guest

    On Fri, 30 Apr 2010 22:19:07 -0500, Jenn writ:

    > I've only been privy to this group for many a month, reading it off and
    > on, so while some of you may have discussed this topic ad nauseum, I
    > have never had that conversation with anyone before.


    Well let me try, then. I think Ed Googled the wrong thing.

    <http://preview.tinyurl.com/33o6wdf> << GoogleGroups search of alt.html

    The subject is old, old, old. Enough already. You wanna layout your pages
    with tables? Do so with our blessings. :) Most here wouldn't dream of
    it.

    Just please, for the love of Pete, don't start this old debate up again.
    Odds are that it'll end up with someone calling someone else stupid,
    someone will call somebody a troll, and after a bunch of pedantic
    horseshit arguments over semantics spread over several days, no-one's
    opinion will have been swayed one bit. Best to drop it. :)
    --
    â‚ "Because all you of Earth are idiots!"
    ¯`·.¸¸.·´¯`·-> ※freemont※ <-·´¯`·.¸¸.·´¯
    freemont, May 1, 2010
    #13
  14. 123Jim

    Jenn Guest

    "Lewis" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > In message <hrg6j9$b9j$-september.org>
    > Jenn <> wrote:
    >
    >> "Ed Mullen" <> wrote in message
    >> news:...
    >>> Jenn wrote:
    >>>> "Lewis"<> wrote in message
    >>>> news:...
    >>>>> In article<>,
    >>>>> sheldonlg<sheldonlg> wrote:
    >>>>>
    >>>>>> On 4/29/2010 5:02 PM, Beauregard T. Shagnasty wrote:
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> I ran into so many more problems with this formulation (such as major
    >>>>>> problems when you narrowed the page and differences between IE and
    >>>>>> Firefox) that I spoke to the boss. I convinced him to use tables.
    >>>>>> He
    >>>>>> wanted to reserve the use of tables to only when there is actual
    >>>>>> table
    >>>>>> of data being presented and not for formatting purposes. Thankfully,
    >>>>>> he
    >>>>>> saw that a week of effort was not worth it.
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>> That is what tables are FOR, presenting tabular data. They should
    >>>>> never
    >>>>> be used for formatting.
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>> Why? I use tables all the time in order to get a page to format
    >>>> exactly
    >>>> like I want it to format.
    >>>>
    >>>
    >>>
    >>> Let me Google that for you ...
    >>>
    >>> http://lmgtfy.com/?q=tables html bad
    >>>
    >>> Not trying to be sarcastic, Jenn. It's just that this is a topic that
    >>> has
    >>> been discussed ad nauseum over the years and a simple search on your
    >>> part
    >>> would have obviated yet another lengthy discussion about about it here.
    >>>



    > But you are basically saying "I don't care that you have had this
    > discussion a thousand times before and I can search google to see the
    > points, it's new to ME so I expect you all to have it again for the
    > 1001st time."


    My point is, I've never even heard of this issue until I read it here. A
    handful of people post here, so that leaves a lot of people who I've never
    heard this issue from before.

    > Here's ten reasons from link #1 on the google results:
    >
    > Tables are usually more bytes of markup. (Longer to download, and more
    > bytes of traffic for the host.)
    >
    > Tables are usually slower to layout for the browser. (Takes longer for


    I don't see this as being true. Do you have any examples I can view to
    compare side by side?

    > Tables usually prevent incremental rendering. (Takes longer for the
    > user to see anything on the page.) [A table will not display anything at
    > all until it is completely loaded]
    >
    > Tables may require you to chop single, logical images into multiple
    > ones. (This makes redesigns total hell, and also increases page load
    > time [more http requests and more total bytes].)


    Or you can make it into an image map....
    Redesigns are usually different from the original anyway, so I don't see how
    this is an issue using tables.


    > Tables break text copying on some browsers. (That's annoying to the
    > user.)
    >
    > Tables prevent certain layouts from working within them (like
    > height:100% for child elements of <td>). (They limit what you can
    > actually do in terms of layout.)
    >
    > Once you know CSS, table-based layouts usually take more time to
    > implement. (A little effort up-front learning CSS pays off heavily in
    > the end.)


    I learned HTML first along with tables, so I like using it and have gotten
    very good at designing and coding any design, thus far, using tables, and
    never had a problem with them loading fast. None of what you have given in
    your ten reasons mean anything to me without a visual example to compare
    using tables vs CSS for the same page.

    At what point in the last 14 yrs did using HTML and tables become obsolete,
    because I have gotten paid very well all this time for doing just that?

    >
    > I'll throw in one more, Tables used for layout expose you as
    > unprofessional.



    I don't agree ... I've been a professional for 14 yrs...... The client
    doesn't care how you code a site as long as it works.

    --
    Jenn (from Oklahoma)
    Jenn, May 1, 2010
    #14
  15. 123Jim

    Jenn Guest

    "Lewis" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > In message <6b42a$4bdba2ef$6216f11c$>
    > freemont <> wrote:
    >> Just please, for the love of Pete, don't start this old debate up again.
    >> Odds are that it'll end up with someone calling someone else stupid,
    >> someone will call somebody a troll, and after a bunch of pedantic
    >> horseshit arguments over semantics spread over several days, no-one's
    >> opinion will have been swayed one bit. Best to drop it. :)


    > Now now, back when CSS was the BigNewThang I was on the wrong side of
    > one of those flame wars. Someone showed me a page that looked TOTALLY
    > different with two different style sheets applied and I shut the hell up
    > and converted.
    >
    > jussayin



    I've been on my own for years designing and building websites and have never
    heard of any big switch to using CSS for layout and only using tables for
    tabular content. Now-a-days the newest thing to use is AJAX for displaying
    dynamic content and I've seen that used for tabular content too. I'm not
    knocking CSS for some things, like drop down horizontal nav or slide out
    verticle nav, or anything else... I'm just saying tables work very well and
    can solve just about any layout issue. CSS can get very confusing.. btdt
    ....... especially with external style sheets that have hundres of lines of
    code within the style sheet.

    --
    Jenn (from Oklahoma)
    Jenn, May 1, 2010
    #15
  16. 123Jim

    freemont Guest

    On Sat, 01 May 2010 16:32:50 +0000, Lewis writ:

    > <http://www.csszengarden.com/?cssfile=080/080.css>


    mmmm... Perhaps not the best example. ;-)

    <http://i40.tinypic.com/106iujo.png> << Opera on Mandriva
    --
    â‚ "Because all you of Earth are idiots!"
    ¯`·.¸¸.·´¯`·-> ※freemont※ <-·´¯`·.¸¸.·´¯
    freemont, May 1, 2010
    #16
  17. 123Jim

    Jenn Guest

    "Lewis" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > In message <hrhfav$uab$-september.org>
    > Jenn <> wrote:
    >
    >> "Lewis" <> wrote in message
    >> news:...
    >>> In message <6b42a$4bdba2ef$6216f11c$>
    >>> freemont <> wrote:
    >>>> Just please, for the love of Pete, don't start this old debate up
    >>>> again.
    >>>> Odds are that it'll end up with someone calling someone else stupid,
    >>>> someone will call somebody a troll, and after a bunch of pedantic
    >>>> horseshit arguments over semantics spread over several days, no-one's
    >>>> opinion will have been swayed one bit. Best to drop it. :)

    >
    >>> Now now, back when CSS was the BigNewThang I was on the wrong side of
    >>> one of those flame wars. Someone showed me a page that looked TOTALLY
    >>> different with two different style sheets applied and I shut the hell up
    >>> and converted.
    >>>
    >>> jussayin

    >
    >
    >> I've been on my own for years designing and building websites and have
    >> never
    >> heard of any big switch to using CSS for layout and only using tables for
    >> tabular content.

    >
    > Then you really haven't been paying attention. You do know we're on
    > HTML4 now and HTML5 is starting to appear?
    >
    > HTML code is for the presentation of the actual data. CSS is for the
    > display. This has been the case for pretty close to 10 years now.
    >
    > You learned how to do what you wanted to do and that's what you
    > continued to do. Tables for layout made sense in 1996, but overloading
    > HTML with display tags was making it a mess. You probably still use <b>
    > and <i> tags as well, right?
    >
    > It worked then, why ever change it.


    Exactly! LOL


    >> Now-a-days the newest thing to use is AJAX for displaying
    >> dynamic content and I've seen that used for tabular content too.

    >
    > Ah, no. AJAX is not the newest thing at all. The newest thing is HTML5
    > which makes things like AJAX and Flash largely irrelevant.


    I haven't looked at HTML5 because I spend all my time working! LOL


    >> knocking CSS for some things, like drop down horizontal nav or slide out
    >> verticle nav, or anything else... I'm just saying tables work very well
    >> and
    >> can solve just about any layout issue. CSS can get very confusing.. btdt
    >> ...... especially with external style sheets that have hundres of lines
    >> of
    >> code within the style sheet.

    >
    > Have you ever been to CSS Zen Garden? <http://www.csszengarden.com/>



    nope ... I just looked at it now, tho.


    > Load it up, the select one of the "select a design" options. Note that
    > this is the same page, with a different style sheet applied.
    >
    > compare <http://www.csszengarden.com/?cssfile=211/211.css> and
    > <http://www.csszengarden.com/?cssfile=202/202.css> and
    > <http://www.csszengarden.com/?cssfile=080/080.css>
    >
    > The last time I did a big redesign of my help pages the ONLY file I
    > edited was the css file and yet the pages look completely different. The
    > CONTENT didn't change, only the display of that content.
    >


    That's not just CSS tho ... it also has references to rss and xml

    --
    Jenn (from Oklahoma)
    Jenn, May 1, 2010
    #17
  18. 123Jim

    freemont Guest

    On Sat, 01 May 2010 11:46:39 -0500, Jenn writ:

    > That's not just CSS tho ... it also has references to rss and xml


    Holy mackerel.

    Do you think that RSS or XML have anything to do with the appearance of a
    web page?
    --
    â‚ "Because all you of Earth are idiots!"
    ¯`·.¸¸.·´¯`·-> ※freemont※ <-·´¯`·.¸¸.·´¯
    freemont, May 1, 2010
    #18
  19. 123Jim

    Neredbojias Guest

    On 30 Apr 2010, "Jenn" <> wrote:

    >
    > "Neredbojias" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    >> On 30 Apr 2010, "Jenn" <> wrote:
    >>
    >>>
    >>> "Lewis" <> wrote in message
    >>> news:...
    >>>> In article <>,
    >>>> sheldonlg <sheldonlg> wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>>> On 4/29/2010 5:02 PM, Beauregard T. Shagnasty wrote:
    >>>>>
    >>>>> I ran into so many more problems with this formulation (such as
    >>>>> major problems when you narrowed the page and differences between
    >>>>> IE and Firefox) that I spoke to the boss. I convinced him to use
    >>>>> tables. He wanted to reserve the use of tables to only when
    >>>>> there is actual table of data being presented and not for
    >>>>> formatting purposes. Thankfully, he saw that a week of effort
    >>>>> was not worth it.

    >
    >
    >>>> That is what tables are FOR, presenting tabular data. They should
    >>>> never be used for formatting.

    >
    >
    >>> Why? I use tables all the time in order to get a page to format
    >>> exactly like I want it to format.

    >
    >
    >> Actually, in some cases I use tables for formatting and not for
    >> "tabular data", and the usage is quite valid in the broadest meaning
    >> of the word. Don't listen to the pedants but alternate means *do*
    >> exist for many of the things lotsa people misuse tables for.

    >
    >
    > I use tables for everything that requires formatting a website.
    > That's the way it was done from the time I ever coded my first
    > website. It's so simple to use them and you can do just about
    > anything with them. :)


    Well, there are many things that can be done simpler with css once you
    get familiar with it. Tables are awkward sometimes. Despite the
    babble here, css really has 2 major parts: styling, like color, fonts,
    and say opacity, and layout such as position (static/absolute/fixed),
    floats, and "layering": ie. z-index or ordering. I personally don't
    condemn the table-user but certain methods *are* easier with css (-when
    you learn it.) However, to be perfectly honest, it does sound like you
    might be from Oklahoma.

    --
    Neredbojias

    http://www.neredbojias.org/
    http://www.neredbojias.net/
    Neredbojias, May 1, 2010
    #19
  20. 123Jim

    Jenn Guest

    "Neredbojias" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > On 30 Apr 2010, "Jenn" <> wrote:
    >
    >>
    >> "Neredbojias" <> wrote in message
    >> news:...
    >>> On 30 Apr 2010, "Jenn" <> wrote:
    >>>
    >>>>
    >>>> "Lewis" <> wrote in message
    >>>> news:...
    >>>>> In article <>,
    >>>>> sheldonlg <sheldonlg> wrote:
    >>>>>
    >>>>>> On 4/29/2010 5:02 PM, Beauregard T. Shagnasty wrote:
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> I ran into so many more problems with this formulation (such as
    >>>>>> major problems when you narrowed the page and differences between
    >>>>>> IE and Firefox) that I spoke to the boss. I convinced him to use
    >>>>>> tables. He wanted to reserve the use of tables to only when
    >>>>>> there is actual table of data being presented and not for
    >>>>>> formatting purposes. Thankfully, he saw that a week of effort
    >>>>>> was not worth it.

    >>
    >>
    >>>>> That is what tables are FOR, presenting tabular data. They should
    >>>>> never be used for formatting.

    >>
    >>
    >>>> Why? I use tables all the time in order to get a page to format
    >>>> exactly like I want it to format.

    >>
    >>
    >>> Actually, in some cases I use tables for formatting and not for
    >>> "tabular data", and the usage is quite valid in the broadest meaning
    >>> of the word. Don't listen to the pedants but alternate means *do*
    >>> exist for many of the things lotsa people misuse tables for.

    >>
    >>
    >> I use tables for everything that requires formatting a website.
    >> That's the way it was done from the time I ever coded my first
    >> website. It's so simple to use them and you can do just about
    >> anything with them. :)

    >
    > Well, there are many things that can be done simpler with css once you
    > get familiar with it. Tables are awkward sometimes. Despite the
    > babble here, css really has 2 major parts: styling, like color, fonts,
    > and say opacity, and layout such as position (static/absolute/fixed),
    > floats, and "layering": ie. z-index or ordering. I personally don't
    > condemn the table-user but certain methods *are* easier with css (-when
    > you learn it.) However, to be perfectly honest, it does sound like you
    > might be from Oklahoma.
    >



    Oh.. don't get me wrong.. I do use CSS for styling, and I've used it for
    layering/z-index type stuff too, and even navigation, but I still love using
    the table because it is simple and you don't have to remember a hundred
    classes and you can actually see what you're doing. I'm sure CSS has it's
    believers, but I consider myself to be somewhere in the middle and will use
    whichever method that makes the most sense to me for the task I need to get
    done.
    --
    Jenn (from Oklahoma)
    Jenn, May 1, 2010
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. =?Utf-8?B?cmdyYW5kaWRpZXI=?=

    Can I have base class derived from System.Web.UI.Page have design

    =?Utf-8?B?cmdyYW5kaWRpZXI=?=, Jul 22, 2005, in forum: ASP .Net
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    479
    Patrice
    Jul 22, 2005
  2. okaminer
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    304
    okaminer
    Aug 1, 2005
  3. =?Utf-8?B?ZGF2aWQ=?=
    Replies:
    6
    Views:
    5,494
    Kevin Spencer
    Aug 18, 2005
  4. =?Utf-8?B?RGF2aWQgVGhpZWxlbg==?=

    Does a resource have to have all phrases in it?

    =?Utf-8?B?RGF2aWQgVGhpZWxlbg==?=, Jan 30, 2006, in forum: ASP .Net
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    375
    Neil Ni
    Feb 3, 2006
  5. Mitch
    Replies:
    6
    Views:
    871
    rySource
    Mar 18, 2006
Loading...

Share This Page