Re: Why CSS is better than HTML Table?

Discussion in 'HTML' started by Andreas Prilop, Mar 31, 2012.

  1. On Sat, 31 Mar 2012, Alan_Smith wrote:

    > There are some reasons why CSS is better than HTML table:


    I believe quantum mechanics is better than surgery.

    --
    In memoriam Alan J. Flavell
    http://www.alanflavell.org.uk/charset/
    Andreas Prilop, Mar 31, 2012
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. On 31/03/2012 15:50, Andreas Prilop wrote:
    > On Sat, 31 Mar 2012, Alan_Smith wrote:
    >
    >> There are some reasons why CSS is better than HTML table:

    >
    > I believe quantum mechanics is better than surgery.
    >

    You are accusing the poster of category confusion, but there is a point
    here. Tables should be used for tables. Used for anything else they
    are a confounded nuisance.

    --
    Myth, after all, is what we believe naturally. History is what we must
    painfully learn and struggle to remember. -Albert Goldman
    Martin Edwards, Apr 1, 2012
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. 2012-04-01 13:23, Martin Edwards wrote:

    > Tables should be used for tables. Used for anything else they are
    > a confounded nuisance.


    The most vulgar forms of the anti-table-movement tend to attack
    undeniable tabular data too, requiring minced tag approaches (div, div,
    div, span, span, span, with loads of tricky, kludgy, and unreliable CSS
    code) to them as well.

    In the more educated circles, there are endless debates of what is a
    "real table" or "tabular data". What you call a table tells more about
    you than the data. This makes the vulgar form somewhat reasonable. Why
    waste time on cutting hairs when you can spend it on coding?

    It's usually pointless to debate against the anti-table-movement, in any
    of its form. Just as it is pointless to debate on religion or to fight
    against superstitions.

    The real problem with using tables for layout was the complexity of the
    designs and the requirements on pixel-exactness. In most cases, the div
    + CSS school has just made the situation worse. They keep repeating
    dogmas they learned from somewhere, without ever stopping to cite any
    factual evidence. The most honest of their dogmas is "layout tables are
    outdated".

    --
    Yucca, http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/
    Jukka K. Korpela, Apr 1, 2012
    #3
  4. Andreas Prilop

    dorayme Guest

    In article <jlasqn$fdb$>,
    (Edward A. Falk) wrote:

    > Fanny Dooley still likes CSS and hates Tables.


    Why do you think that is?

    --
    dorayme
    dorayme, Apr 2, 2012
    #4
  5. In article <-hannover.de>,
    Andreas Prilop <> wrote:
    >On Sat, 31 Mar 2012, Alan_Smith wrote:
    >
    >> There are some reasons why CSS is better than HTML table:

    >
    >I believe quantum mechanics is better than surgery.


    Maybe, but Fanny Dooley still likes CSS and hates Tables.

    --
    -Ed Falk,
    http://thespamdiaries.blogspot.com/
    Edward A. Falk, Apr 2, 2012
    #5
  6. On Mon, 2 Apr 2012 00:45:11 +0000 (UTC), (Edward A.
    Falk) wrote:

    >In article <-hannover.de>,
    >Andreas Prilop <> wrote:
    >>On Sat, 31 Mar 2012, Alan_Smith wrote:
    >>
    >>> There are some reasons why CSS is better than HTML table:

    >>
    >>I believe quantum mechanics is better than surgery.

    >
    >Maybe, but Fanny Dooley still likes CSS and hates Tables.


    I use CSS in my tables. And why not? They are two different
    things for two different purposes.

    Sincerely,

    Gene Wirchenko
    Gene Wirchenko, Apr 2, 2012
    #6
  7. Andreas Prilop

    se Guest

    "Gene Wirchenko" <> skrev i meddelelsen
    news:...
    > On Mon, 2 Apr 2012 00:45:11 +0000 (UTC), (Edward A.
    > Falk) wrote:
    >
    >>In article <-hannover.de>,
    >>Andreas Prilop <> wrote:
    >>>On Sat, 31 Mar 2012, Alan_Smith wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> There are some reasons why CSS is better than HTML table:
    >>>
    >>>I believe quantum mechanics is better than surgery.

    >>
    >>Maybe, but Fanny Dooley still likes CSS and hates Tables.

    >
    > I use CSS in my tables. And why not? They are two different
    > things for two different purposes.
    >
    > Sincerely,
    >
    > Gene Wirchenko


    Yeah, exactly; That's it. Prophets on newsgroups trying to build up
    lack of self-confidence - he's a pain.
    /se
    se, Apr 2, 2012
    #7
  8. On 01/04/2012 11:36, Jukka K. Korpela wrote:
    > 2012-04-01 13:23, Martin Edwards wrote:
    >
    >> Tables should be used for tables. Used for anything else they are
    >> a confounded nuisance.

    >
    > The most vulgar forms of the anti-table-movement tend to attack
    > undeniable tabular data too, requiring minced tag approaches (div, div,
    > div, span, span, span, with loads of tricky, kludgy, and unreliable CSS
    > code) to them as well.
    >
    > In the more educated circles, there are endless debates of what is a
    > "real table" or "tabular data". What you call a table tells more about
    > you than the data. This makes the vulgar form somewhat reasonable. Why
    > waste time on cutting hairs when you can spend it on coding?
    >
    > It's usually pointless to debate against the anti-table-movement, in any
    > of its form. Just as it is pointless to debate on religion or to fight
    > against superstitions.
    >
    > The real problem with using tables for layout was the complexity of the
    > designs and the requirements on pixel-exactness. In most cases, the div
    > + CSS school has just made the situation worse. They keep repeating
    > dogmas they learned from somewhere, without ever stopping to cite any
    > factual evidence. The most honest of their dogmas is "layout tables are
    > outdated".
    >

    Thanks for revealing this area of debate to me. I don't know anyone
    else who is into computing personally, so I get all my information online.

    --
    Myth, after all, is what we believe naturally. History is what we must
    painfully learn and struggle to remember. -Albert Goldman
    Martin Edwards, Apr 2, 2012
    #8
  9. On 02/04/2012 01:45, Edward A. Falk wrote:
    > In article<-hannover.de>,
    > Andreas Prilop<> wrote:
    >> On Sat, 31 Mar 2012, Alan_Smith wrote:
    >>
    >>> There are some reasons why CSS is better than HTML table:

    >>
    >> I believe quantum mechanics is better than surgery.

    >
    > Maybe, but Fanny Dooley still likes CSS and hates Tables.
    >

    And what about poor old Dicey Riley? She's taken to the cup. As for
    me, I've lost my fallooran.

    --
    Myth, after all, is what we believe naturally. History is what we must
    painfully learn and struggle to remember. -Albert Goldman
    Martin Edwards, Apr 2, 2012
    #9
  10. On 02/04/2012 00:54, dorayme wrote:
    > In article<jlasqn$fdb$>,
    > (Edward A. Falk) wrote:
    >
    >> Fanny Dooley still likes CSS and hates Tables.

    >
    > Why do you think that is?
    >

    Who knows what is in another person's mind?

    --
    Myth, after all, is what we believe naturally. History is what we must
    painfully learn and struggle to remember. -Albert Goldman
    Martin Edwards, Apr 2, 2012
    #10
  11. On 02/04/2012 04:49, se wrote:
    >
    > "Gene Wirchenko" <> skrev i meddelelsen
    > news:...
    >> On Mon, 2 Apr 2012 00:45:11 +0000 (UTC), (Edward A.
    >> Falk) wrote:
    >>
    >>> In article <-hannover.de>,
    >>> Andreas Prilop <> wrote:
    >>>> On Sat, 31 Mar 2012, Alan_Smith wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>>> There are some reasons why CSS is better than HTML table:
    >>>>
    >>>> I believe quantum mechanics is better than surgery.
    >>>
    >>> Maybe, but Fanny Dooley still likes CSS and hates Tables.

    >>
    >> I use CSS in my tables. And why not? They are two different
    >> things for two different purposes.
    >>
    >> Sincerely,
    >>
    >> Gene Wirchenko

    >
    > Yeah, exactly; That's it. Prophets on newsgroups trying to build up
    > lack of self-confidence - he's a pain.
    > /se
    >
    >
    >

    Nobody said I'd be a blue charioteer every time.

    --
    Myth, after all, is what we believe naturally. History is what we must
    painfully learn and struggle to remember. -Albert Goldman
    Martin Edwards, Apr 2, 2012
    #11
  12. Jukka K. Korpela wrote:
    > 2012-04-01 13:23, Martin Edwards wrote:
    >
    >> Tables should be used for tables. Used for anything else they are
    >> a confounded nuisance.

    >
    > The most vulgar forms of the anti-table-movement tend to attack
    > undeniable tabular data too, requiring minced tag approaches (div, div,
    > div, span, span, span, with loads of tricky, kludgy, and unreliable CSS
    > code) to them as well.


    I agree with you here. I prefer to avoid the table as a layout scaffold
    with the flexibility that the "promise" that CSS can provide. That said,
    anti-table-movement that results in DIViditis is like the prescription
    drug that is worst than the disease.


    > In the more educated circles, there are endless debates of what is a
    > "real table" or "tabular data". What you call a table tells more about
    > you than the data. This makes the vulgar form somewhat reasonable. Why
    > waste time on cutting hairs when you can spend it on coding?


    Agree with your point, and not to diminish it, just a
    point-of-information I think the English idiom you were going for was
    "splitting hairs"

    >
    > It's usually pointless to debate against the anti-table-movement, in any
    > of its form. Just as it is pointless to debate on religion or to fight
    > against superstitions.


    So true.

    >
    > The real problem with using tables for layout was the complexity of the
    > designs and the requirements on pixel-exactness. In most cases, the div
    > + CSS school has just made the situation worse. They keep repeating
    > dogmas they learned from somewhere, without ever stopping to cite any
    > factual evidence. The most honest of their dogmas is "layout tables are
    > outdated".
    >


    Also agree. A layout with scores of nested container DIVs and countless
    CLASSes and IDs coupled with a stylesheet that rivals the size of the
    documents in my opinion is as much a horror show to maintain than a
    vintage 90's style nested-table disaster.

    As I said I prefer the flexibility of CSS and now with the better basic
    support finally obtained by the glacial-paced improvements in MSIE it
    makes CSS an easier choice, (again for me). But for many a table will
    just make it easier for them to invasion and layout their site. Go for
    it! I would say though if you find the need to nest tables to get what
    you wish, then it is time to stop and reaccess your approach.

    What I think bothers me most about table-layout designers is they
    generally micro-manage the page real-estate with static dimensions and
    fixed and all too often miniscule base font sizes. To be fair the
    anti-tableists are guilty of this too, but at least *sometimes* their
    containers are flexible. Now with smartphones, tablets, netbooks,
    laptops, and in my case multiple-monitored desktops all accessing
    websites, I think designing for a specific screen resolution,
    window-size, OS, or browser is the real problem.


    --
    Take care,

    Jonathan
    -------------------
    LITTLE WORKS STUDIO
    http://www.LittleWorksStudio.com
    Jonathan N. Little, Apr 2, 2012
    #12
    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. Mr. SweatyFinger
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    1,744
    Smokey Grindel
    Dec 2, 2006
  2. Peter Bencsik
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    810
  3. Beauregard T. Shagnasty

    Re: Why CSS is better than HTML Table?

    Beauregard T. Shagnasty, Mar 31, 2012, in forum: HTML
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    553
    Beauregard T. Shagnasty
    Mar 31, 2012
  4. se
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    706
    Martin Edwards
    Apr 1, 2012
  5. richard
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    599
    Martin Edwards
    Apr 1, 2012
Loading...

Share This Page