You asked how to do it with ul/li, another poster told you not to
want this and you put your tail between your legs and kept your
table. I suggested a way for you to use a UL list and I say that
though your website is called "Hardcore" something consider
changing it to Softcore. <g>
Can you show me a style and html that can clone the table or is the table
slightly more powerful?[/QUOTE]
Seems illogical to say "Can you show me a style..." after you
quote my "I suggested a way..."? I did show you how to do it in a
previous post, I included all the HTML and the CSS.
As for the table way being slightly more powerful, what does
powerful mean here?
* It is *easier* for most authors to make, because a table is
very much a visual aid, the looks we often want are *natural* and
*built in* to them. For example, if you have just n cells in a
one row table, and say to make the table 100% wide, providing the
content is about the same in width, the browser will tend to do
the work of dividing into n equal cells across, you not having to
do any more than tell it to stretch to 100% wide as against its
natural tendency to shrink to fit its content.
* A one row table is not all that different in its semantics to a
simple list. They are close enough to mean the same. However, in
a sense, the table is overkill, *too powerful* for the job. The
sense being that a table comes into its own in organising lists
of things, relating items in these lists to each other in a
visually suggestive manner. A simple set of menu items hardly
requires the power of a table. Maybe tables don't like being
dragged into doing menial things that lesser elements can do,
consider this.
* A table is in general not as flexible for a simple menu list:
for starters, rows do not wrap. If the user has a browser whose
viewport cannot accommodate all the menu in a horizontal line he
needs to scroll. With a list that is styled flexibly, the menu
items that cannot fit in to the right will wrap to the next line
and so people with narrow viewports need not scroll.