Taking table-less CSS design far too far

Discussion in 'HTML' started by Andy Dingley, May 24, 2006.

  1. Andy Dingley

    Andy Dingley Guest

    Andy Dingley, May 24, 2006
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Andy Dingley

    VK Guest

    VK, May 24, 2006
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Andy Dingley

    ironcorona Guest

    ironcorona, May 24, 2006
    #3
  4. Andy Dingley

    Dylan Parry Guest

    Dylan Parry, May 24, 2006
    #4
  5. Jonathan N. Little, May 24, 2006
    #5
  6. Andy Dingley

    JDS Guest

    JDS, May 24, 2006
    #6
  7. Andy Dingley

    Dylan Parry Guest

    Dylan Parry, May 24, 2006
    #7
  8. Dylan Parry wrote:
    > Andy Dingley <> wrote:
    >
    >> http://thedailywtf.com/forums/thread/74148.aspx

    >
    > It's scary what some people think about tables. I really can't see where
    > anyone gets the idea that tables shouldn't be used for tabular data!

    <snip>

    Simply hearing someone make the slip of the tongue that "tables are
    deprecated".

    http://smjg.port5.com/faqs/web/html/tablesdep.html

    What next? People coding up a whole website using no element other than
    DIV, and maybe SPAN as well?

    Stewart.
     
    Stewart Gordon, May 24, 2006
    #8
  9. Andy Dingley

    Dylan Parry Guest

    Stewart Gordon wrote:

    > Simply hearing someone make the slip of the tongue that "tables are
    > deprecated".


    You'd have to be pretty stupid to accept that sort of statement at face
    value though! :) I can't (or rather don't want to) believe that anyone
    who has any mind of their own wouldn't say "what? completely?" or
    something similar.

    --
    Dylan Parry
    http://electricfreedom.org -- Where the Music Progressively Rocks!
     
    Dylan Parry, May 24, 2006
    #9
  10. On Wed, 24 May 2006 15:15:31 +0100, Stewart Gordon <>
    wrote:

    > What next? People coding up a whole website using no element other than
    > DIV, and maybe SPAN as well?


    That's been here for a while now, haven't you noticed? :)

    It amazes me how in such a short space of time we've gone from tag soup
    loving CSS bashers to morons who have missed the whole point of CSS and
    think tables are banned and that we now use DIVs and SPANs instead of
    paragraphs and lists etc. Or worse still are the sites where they still
    use table layouts but every cell contains a DIV wrapped around its
    contents, or even DIVs around each paragraph, list or other block level
    element. And that's before you consider too many class names being used,
    most of which have names like "BlueLeftBar" or "SmallWhiteText" etc.

    And it's going to get *much* worse because peoples' fixation with CSS and
    purging themselves of tables hasn't got into full swing yet. Funny thing
    is, many of the sites that use DIVs everywhere also loyally promote
    Firefox. There's a standards bandwagon people have jumped on without
    really knowing or caring what those standards mean. It started years ago
    with doctypes, then using XHTML markup on pages served as HTML and now
    they've all gone CSS crazy. I fear that in a couple of years time things
    like incompatible DOMs, quirky CSS implementations, abusing tags for
    layout (such as table layouts or blockquotes to indent text) or using
    <font color="red" face="times" style="color:#ff0000;font-family:times"> so
    that "browsers with and without CSS will display the page the same" will
    seem trivial compared to the CSS soup that's out there and the problems
    that brings.

    But I think part of the blame has to go to messageboards and newsgroups
    where people who do know tell those who don't that "You shouldn't use
    tables and font tags. Use DIVs and SPANs instead" without spelling it out
    to them that they're referring to layout and presentational effects. But
    by the same token too many people have never been bothered to read the
    specs or even a tutorial properly. They just skim-read a coupld of
    paragraphs and messageboard posts and assume what is meant instead of
    reading what is said.
     
    Bert Lancaster, May 24, 2006
    #10
  11. Andy Dingley

    Frank Olieu Guest

    _Stewart Gordon_ skrev | wrote | écrivit (24-05-2006 16:15):

    > What next? People coding up a whole website using no element other than
    > DIV, and maybe SPAN as well?


    Well, I did that!

    Needless to say, it was an *experiment* in making a sort-of microformat
    mimicking XHTML2. The purpose was to experiment (among others) with nesting of
    <h> and <section> elements, and their styling with CSS...
    But please, try this /only/ at home!
    http://www.design.olieu.net/files/divmania.html

    --
    Venlig hilsen | Kind regards | Cordialement
    Frank
    ___________________________________________
    Being a bit off-topic...
     
    Frank Olieu, May 24, 2006
    #11
  12. Andy Dingley

    JDS Guest

    JDS, May 24, 2006
    #12
  13. Andy Dingley

    JDS Guest

    JDS, May 24, 2006
    #13
  14. Andy Dingley

    JDS Guest

    JDS, May 24, 2006
    #14
  15. On Wed, 24 May 2006 16:15:31 +0200, Stewart Gordon <>
    wrote:

    > What next? People coding up a whole website using no element other than
    > DIV, and maybe SPAN as well?


    Why use SPAN if you can use

    DIV.inline { display: inline; }

    ???

    --
    Garmt de Vries
     
    Garmt de Vries, May 24, 2006
    #15
  16. Andy Dingley

    ironcorona Guest

    Garmt de Vries wrote:

    > Why use SPAN if you can use
    >
    > DIV.inline { display: inline; }


    You can't put a div into a <h> or <p>, I'm sure there are others.


    --
    Brian O'Connor (ironcorona)
     
    ironcorona, May 24, 2006
    #16
  17. Andy Dingley

    Frank Olieu Guest

    _ironcorona_ skrev | wrote | écrivit (24-05-2006 18:52):

    > You can't put a div into a <h> or <p>, I'm sure there are others.


    Why use <h> and <p> when you can use <div class="heading"> and <div
    class="paragraph"> ;-)

    --
    Venlig hilsen | Kind regards | Cordialement
    Frank
     
    Frank Olieu, May 24, 2006
    #17
  18. Andy Dingley

    Tony Guest

    Stewart Gordon wrote:
    >
    > Simply hearing someone make the slip of the tongue that "tables are
    > deprecated".
    >
    > http://smjg.port5.com/faqs/web/html/tablesdep.html
    >
    > What next? People coding up a whole website using no element other than
    > DIV, and maybe SPAN as well?


    <html> is now deprecated
     
    Tony, May 24, 2006
    #18
  19. Andy Dingley

    Tony Guest

    Dylan Parry wrote:
    > Stewart Gordon wrote:
    >
    >>Simply hearing someone make the slip of the tongue that "tables are
    >>deprecated".

    >
    > You'd have to be pretty stupid to accept that sort of statement at face
    > value though! :) I can't (or rather don't want to) believe that anyone
    > who has any mind of their own wouldn't say "what? completely?" or
    > something similar.


    "Never underestimate the power of human stupidity" - R. A. Heinlein
     
    Tony, May 24, 2006
    #19
  20. Andy Dingley

    dorayme Guest

    In article <>,
    Dylan Parry <> wrote:

    > Andy Dingley <> wrote:
    >
    > > http://thedailywtf.com/forums/thread/74148.aspx

    >
    > It's scary what some people think about tables. I really can't see where
    > anyone gets the idea that tables shouldn't be used for tabular data!


    You could get to see this by studying the various scare campaigns
    in the history of ideas. Sometimes Christian ministers and others
    have to explain to folk that sex is ok under certain conditions...

    --
    dorayme
     
    dorayme, May 24, 2006
    #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. RC
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    467
    Chase Preuninger
    Jan 8, 2008
  2. jiajia wu
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    384
    jiajia wu
    Oct 1, 2009
  3. Jim Cain
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    233
    Yukihiro Matsumoto
    Jul 18, 2003
  4. 6668
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    175
  5. lllll
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    164
    lllll
    Jun 8, 2009
Loading...

Share This Page