D
dorayme
Frank Olieu said:
!
!
L
Luigi Donatello Asero
If you use <div class="heading"> and <div class="paragraph"> you cannot use
<div class="section"> and <div class="subsection"> (where section is the
first level and subsection is the second) can you?
<div class="section"> and <div class="subsection"> (where section is the
first level and subsection is the second) can you?
N
Nik Coughlin
Frank said:
That's pretty cool, pity I can't read the content but it looks like filler
anyway.
V
VK
Frank said:
And overall tables are completely dead because:
....
div.grid {display: table; width: 100%; border-spacing: 1em;}
div.grid ul {display: table-row;}
div.grid li {display: table-cell;
....
(a recent real life sample taken from one of newsgroups)
G
Guest
| Dylan Parry 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".
That's not surprising. Nor is it surprising that it is believed. Given
that from what some people say, it appears that many previously standard
features are depricated even before the replacement has been implemented
on all platforms, it certainly comes across that the web standards people
tend to follow paths like this.
| 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?
I think it will be hard to avoid a few. But inside the body, quite doable,
though not all styles can be presented on all browsers.
|>
|>> 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".
That's not surprising. Nor is it surprising that it is believed. Given
that from what some people say, it appears that many previously standard
features are depricated even before the replacement has been implemented
on all platforms, it certainly comes across that the web standards people
tend to follow paths like this.
| 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?
I think it will be hard to avoid a few. But inside the body, quite doable,
though not all styles can be presented on all browsers.
G
Guest
|
| Frank Olieu wrote:
|> Why use <h> and <p> when you can use <div class="heading"> and <div
|> class="paragraph"> ;-)
|
| And overall tables are completely dead because:
| ...
| div.grid {display: table; width: 100%; border-spacing: 1em;}
| div.grid ul {display: table-row;}
| div.grid li {display: table-cell;
| ...
That's still tables. It's just now in CSS. And it does not work
on IE. Until such time as IE comes out in full support of tables
in CSS _and_ enough time passes for virtually everyone to install
that version of IE, then don't even bother pushing people to avoid
tables in HTML in lieu of tables in CSS (or of other methods that
don't actually give the same results). This could take two or three
years after IE7 comes out if IE7 has the support, and if IE7 can run
on versions of Windows from Win98 and Win2000 to the latest. It can
be even longer if you have to wait for the OS to be upgraded or to
be switched to Linux.
In the mean time, I'll be using elements TABLE, TR, and TD for my
layouts that can't be done by other means (and this is most of them)
and not losing a bit of sleep over it.
| Frank Olieu wrote:
|> Why use <h> and <p> when you can use <div class="heading"> and <div
|> class="paragraph"> ;-)
|
| And overall tables are completely dead because:
| ...
| div.grid {display: table; width: 100%; border-spacing: 1em;}
| div.grid ul {display: table-row;}
| div.grid li {display: table-cell;
| ...
That's still tables. It's just now in CSS. And it does not work
on IE. Until such time as IE comes out in full support of tables
in CSS _and_ enough time passes for virtually everyone to install
that version of IE, then don't even bother pushing people to avoid
tables in HTML in lieu of tables in CSS (or of other methods that
don't actually give the same results). This could take two or three
years after IE7 comes out if IE7 has the support, and if IE7 can run
on versions of Windows from Win98 and Win2000 to the latest. It can
be even longer if you have to wait for the OS to be upgraded or to
be switched to Linux.
In the mean time, I'll be using elements TABLE, TR, and TD for my
layouts that can't be done by other means (and this is most of them)
and not losing a bit of sleep over it.
I
ironcorona
VK said:
EVIL! The power of Christ compels thee.
J
jb
Until css can size columns for the largest thing (or at least note the
position of any-thing and re-use it), tables win.
position of any-thing and re-use it), tables win.
N
Nik Coughlin
Do you mean "layouts that I can't do without tables because I don't
understand CSS well enough yet"? You can do any table layout using CSS
instead.
S
Steve Pugh
Luigi Donatello Asero said:
Of course you can (assuming you're silly enough to use divs instead of
real headings and paragraphs in the first place). Why do you think you
can't?
Steve
S
Steve Pugh
VK said:
You're joking. Or trolling. Or both.
Steve
T
Toby Inkster
Stewart said:
You'll need <title> too if you want to validate. Forget SPAN though --
what use is that when you've got "display:inline". Don't need IMG when you
can set a background image on a DIV. And what's the point in A when you
can just use a bit of onclick Javascript magic? ;-)
V
VK
Steve said:
That's wrong with you? Look at the previous post I was quoting to reply
to. This extract of code taken from one of Big 8 groups was intended to
continue the joke.
OK, for whoever doesn't have it at all: the statement "And overall
tables are completely dead because: <code follows>" was a /joke/
/ha-ha/ /
/(Here you suppose to smile).
It is a joke to drop table because "daddy said no" and then recreate
it's exact behavior on div's because "daddy didn't mention that".
A
Andy Dingley
You'd have to be pretty stupid to accept that sort of statement at face
value though!
What if it's combined with "Proof by Authority" and Internet anonymity
though? If you're unfamiliar with the subject and you read something in
an ostensibly technical newsgroup , there is a general tendency to trust
it unless you specifically know better. It's not easy to know that
certain voluminous posters are actually clueless, unless you already
know the subject yourself.
A
Andy Dingley
Or stupid. This _was_ a recent example in a thread on "Are CSS tables
still evil <table>s" ? Both the thread's assertion and VK seemed
equally wrong-headed.
D
Dylan Parry
Andy said:
I suppose you are right. It's perceived authority figures and Milgram
all over again.
S
Steve Pugh
VK said:
With you we can never tell when you're joiking, when you're trolling
and when you're just having one of your paranoid delusions. As there
were no W3C conspiracy theories in your post we can rule out the last
one in this case.
I wrote the code you quoted.
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.infosystems.www.authoring.stylesheets/msg/1e1a2764edce726a
http://steve.pugh.net/test/css-table-demo.html
If you want to play with my toys expect me to join in the game. ;-)
More seriously, the code was written as a theoretical exercise ('cos IE
makes it impractical to use in real life) to demonstrate how CSS can
replace tables used for layout.
Replacing data tables, or replacing headings and paragraphs, with
divs+CSS is just stupid and deserves to be laughed at.
Steve
S
Steve Pugh
Andy said:
It was an example I wrote.
It served its purpose - as a theoretical demo how CSS can be used to
replace layout tables in compliant browsers. It was never meant to
imply that CSS be used to replace data tables and anyone using it as
such is either joking, trolling or, yes, stupid.
Steve
V
VK
Steve said:
Oh-oh...
But no bats, OK?
Glad we are agreed on that one.
If you had one in the post I quoted, I would never use it: ciwas is
full of similar samples (but deadly serious, alas).
If I added a smily in my most, I wouldn't need to comment on it later.
The power of smilies in the Usenet...
G
Guest
| (e-mail address removed) wrote:
|> In the mean time, I'll be using elements TABLE, TR, and TD for my
|> layouts that can't be done by other means (and this is most of them)
|
| Do you mean "layouts that I can't do without tables because I don't
| understand CSS well enough yet"? You can do any table layout using CSS
| instead.
But CSS tables don't work in all browsers. That was the whole point of
my post. While I dislike Windows and IE and just about anything else of
Microsoft, I don't carry that to the extreme of making my site unreadable
or have problems for readers using IE.
So wait a few years, then you can do it all in CSS, hopefully.
|> In the mean time, I'll be using elements TABLE, TR, and TD for my
|> layouts that can't be done by other means (and this is most of them)
|
| Do you mean "layouts that I can't do without tables because I don't
| understand CSS well enough yet"? You can do any table layout using CSS
| instead.
But CSS tables don't work in all browsers. That was the whole point of
my post. While I dislike Windows and IE and just about anything else of
Microsoft, I don't carry that to the extreme of making my site unreadable
or have problems for readers using IE.
So wait a few years, then you can do it all in CSS, hopefully.