N
news.frontiernet.net
I have been usingtables to control screen position of content. It is easy to
concieve the design. It is easy to code. It is easy to troubleshoot. It is
easy to tweek code in a trial-and-error mode to find the most advantageous
presentation. There are facilities to help craft advanced layouts with
tables, such as FrontPage.
NOw, it is recommended that one NOT use tables for design control, but us
CSS positioning instead.
U . . huh . .. sure.
How?
A simple task like a header, then a two column presentation, follewed by a
footer, which is easy, quick and cross-browser using tables was a task that
after hours of reading and hours of attempting various codings, I gave up
on..
And all I attempted was the simple part, the two column presentation
followed by the footer. I didnt try to do the header which is tables
handling the javascript navigation.
How can anyone expect that a wide variety of people will ever be able to use
the CSS positioning if it is this obscure, this difficult, this prone to
cross-browser failure?
The quick and dirty example of this using TABLEs is at:
http://www.wgtn.net/Recreation/archery_tbl.htm
The version I was trying with CSS positioning and the <DIV> tag is at:
http://www.wgtn.net/Recreation/archery_div.htm
The CSS version has the footer, which shouldbe at the bottom of the page
following the two column presentation, but it iserroneously positioned ABOVE
it. And the page wont scroll for the visitor to see all of what is in the
left column. Jeez!
The CSS version has an outer container for the two columns using <Div
style="position: relative; top: 100px;">
On the CSS version, the left of the two columns is <Div class="leftpanel"
style="position: absolute; left: 10; width:200; overflow: auto;
border-style: double; background-color: ivory">
On the CSS version, the right of the two columns is <Div
style="position:absolute; left: 240; width:575;">
On the CSS version, the footer is <div style="position: absolute;">
Perhaps it is the nomenclature . . ie the wording that confuses me with
ABSOLUTE that is seemingly not absolute in a design sense and RELATIVE that
seems to indicate it positions with the flow, but apparently does not under
some, and obscure, circumstances.
Is there some simple thing I am missing here? OR are TABLES still the
easiest to implement, most sure footed, quickest to impliment, easiest to do
trial-and-error layout work with, most cross-browser, more easy to trouble
shoot and therefore should still be the design coding of preference?
concieve the design. It is easy to code. It is easy to troubleshoot. It is
easy to tweek code in a trial-and-error mode to find the most advantageous
presentation. There are facilities to help craft advanced layouts with
tables, such as FrontPage.
NOw, it is recommended that one NOT use tables for design control, but us
CSS positioning instead.
U . . huh . .. sure.
How?
A simple task like a header, then a two column presentation, follewed by a
footer, which is easy, quick and cross-browser using tables was a task that
after hours of reading and hours of attempting various codings, I gave up
on..
And all I attempted was the simple part, the two column presentation
followed by the footer. I didnt try to do the header which is tables
handling the javascript navigation.
How can anyone expect that a wide variety of people will ever be able to use
the CSS positioning if it is this obscure, this difficult, this prone to
cross-browser failure?
The quick and dirty example of this using TABLEs is at:
http://www.wgtn.net/Recreation/archery_tbl.htm
The version I was trying with CSS positioning and the <DIV> tag is at:
http://www.wgtn.net/Recreation/archery_div.htm
The CSS version has the footer, which shouldbe at the bottom of the page
following the two column presentation, but it iserroneously positioned ABOVE
it. And the page wont scroll for the visitor to see all of what is in the
left column. Jeez!
The CSS version has an outer container for the two columns using <Div
style="position: relative; top: 100px;">
On the CSS version, the left of the two columns is <Div class="leftpanel"
style="position: absolute; left: 10; width:200; overflow: auto;
border-style: double; background-color: ivory">
On the CSS version, the right of the two columns is <Div
style="position:absolute; left: 240; width:575;">
On the CSS version, the footer is <div style="position: absolute;">
Perhaps it is the nomenclature . . ie the wording that confuses me with
ABSOLUTE that is seemingly not absolute in a design sense and RELATIVE that
seems to indicate it positions with the flow, but apparently does not under
some, and obscure, circumstances.
Is there some simple thing I am missing here? OR are TABLES still the
easiest to implement, most sure footed, quickest to impliment, easiest to do
trial-and-error layout work with, most cross-browser, more easy to trouble
shoot and therefore should still be the design coding of preference?