table, div or unordered list


J

jokla

I was wondering what's the best to use for a page containing some
products?

Currently I'm using divs to keep the content where I want . . . you can
see this at http://www.prilux.de/lexmark
As there is a to high code/content radio and the divs make the .php
file too big, I decided to try the same thing using unordered list . .
.. which I did for http://www.prilux.de/oki

Before the whole redesign of the website, tables were used for product
listing and when I did the redesign of the site I decided to leave
tables in the past and move forward. Well, tables would be the best,
but as an alternative to this what is better div ( which breakes the
flow of the content and would require much more code ) or lists ( which
makes the site smaller in size and has and natural content flow, I
guess ). I have to say that I'd rather not go back to tables.
 
Ad

Advertisements

J

Jonathan N. Little

jokla said:
I was wondering what's the best to use for a page containing some
products?

Currently I'm using divs to keep the content where I want . . . you can
see this at http://www.prilux.de/lexmark
As there is a to high code/content radio and the divs make the .php
file too big, I decided to try the same thing using unordered list . .
. which I did for http://www.prilux.de/oki

Before the whole redesign of the website, tables were used for product
listing and when I did the redesign of the site I decided to leave
tables in the past and move forward. Well, tables would be the best,
but as an alternative to this what is better div ( which breakes the
flow of the content and would require much more code ) or lists ( which
makes the site smaller in size and has and natural content flow, I
guess ). I have to say that I'd rather not go back to tables.

Dang looks like tabular data to me. This is where you *should* use a
table. Tables themselves are not deprecated, just for use as a layout
structure.
 
E

Ed Seedhouse

Currently I'm using divs to keep the content where I want . . . you can
see this at http://www.prilux.de/lexmark
As there is a to high code/content radio and the divs make the .php
file too big, I decided to try the same thing using unordered list . .
. which I did for http://www.prilux.de/oki

Before the whole redesign of the website, tables were used for product
listing and when I did the redesign of the site I decided to leave
tables in the past and move forward. Well, tables would be the best,
but as an alternative to this what is better div ( which breakes the
flow of the content and would require much more code ) or lists ( which
makes the site smaller in size and has and natural content flow, I
guess ). I have to say that I'd rather not go back to tables.

Unanswerable question, basicly. What is the content? If it is tabular
in nature then of course use tables. If it isn't tabular, what is it?
If it's a list then use a list, of course. If it's a paragraph use a P
element.

As to "tables vs. divs" that is a nonsense question. It misses the
whole idea of CSS. Divs were never intended and are not appropriate as
a "replacement for tables". DIV is a grouping element intended to group
several contained block elements when necessary to create a handle for a
CSS rule.
 
D

dorayme

"jokla said:
I was wondering what's the best to use for a page containing some
products?

Currently I'm using divs to keep the content where I want . . . you can
see this at http://www.prilux.de/lexmark
As there is a to high code/content radio and the divs make the .php
file too big, I decided to try the same thing using unordered list . .
. which I did for http://www.prilux.de/oki

Before the whole redesign of the website, tables were used for product
listing and when I did the redesign of the site I decided to leave
tables in the past and move forward. Well, tables would be the best,
but as an alternative to this what is better div ( which breakes the
flow of the content and would require much more code ) or lists ( which
makes the site smaller in size and has and natural content flow, I
guess ). I have to say that I'd rather not go back to tables.

I looked at the page, got source and told Find to find "table",
to correspond to the table in it. It was missing. Make it
non-missing. There is a moral and PR dimension to all this stuff.
You should seize the opportunity to use tables where there is
tabular data so that the folk who promote and/or use tables for
layout cannot lampoon the teachings of this church.
 
J

jokla

dorayme said:
......so that the folk who promote and/or use tables for
layout cannot lampoon the teachings of this church.


I dont' understand what you mean with this


BTW, you guys convinced me to go back to tables . . . even if I don't
like to do that
 
J

Jonathan N. Little

jokla said:
BTW, you guys convinced me to go back to tables . . . even if I don't
like to do that

You misunderstand, it is *not* that tables are not longer valid it is
that they should not be used to layout your page, i.e., "to place your
nav links here and your logo over there..." But what you have here is a
table, 3 columns of data which I can guess is 'part number',
'description', and 'price'. Now if you were using a table to build your
*list* of links on your navbar or to divide up your page as top banner,
navbar and content, that would be an abuse of tables as layout!
 
Ad

Advertisements

J

jokla

Jonathan said:
You misunderstand, it is *not* that tables are not longer valid it is
that they should not be used to layout your page, i.e., "to place your
nav links here and your logo over there..." But what you have here is a
table, 3 columns of data which I can guess is 'part number',
'description', and 'price'. Now if you were using a table to build your
*list* of links on your navbar or to divide up your page as top banner,
navbar and content, that would be an abuse of tables as layout!


I'm aware of this . . . I just find tables unhandy and not very style
friendly . . .
 
J

Jonathan N. Little

I'm aware of this . . . I just find tables unhandy and not very style
friendly . . .

Not sure what you mean. A table is a table, a list a list, a paragraph
is a paragraph, you should markup as the content semantically requires.
I don find any difficulties styling any elements, except when floating
is involved at times...
 
D

dorayme

"jokla said:
I dont' understand what you mean with this


BTW, you guys convinced me to go back to tables . . . even if I don't
like to do that

The point was simple enough. But allow me to have a mini rave
while explaining it:

There would be a lot of people outside the church, unlike black
sheep and desperate stirrers, that look for and settle at the
least excuse for confirmation for their prejudices. One of the
prejudices that is extremely hard to shake is that it is wiser on
the whole to avoid using tables for layout purposes. It is
extremely hard because table layouts are about an order of
magnitude easier to construct to behave cross browser, and even
to maintain for most small sites, than css driven sites for most
people of average devotion. (I know, a vague phrase, but there
are things behind it).

In spite of this, the general use of tables for layout is quite
flawed. I will not give the arguments here.

Now, to your question. If an over zealous convert to the idea of
css driven sites takes the idea so far as to try to get by
without tables altogether, even when they are quite demanded for
tabular data sections like in the example of this thread, he then
provides ammunition to those outside the church to attack the
whole church. Because he has exaggerated and taken the idea to
absurd degrees. The absurdity is quite prominent but not always
correctly diagnosed by those who do not understand the issues.

Still puzzled? OK Pal, what about this:

If a scientist goes too far and believes in things (to put it
simply but a bit innaccurately) that go 'beyond the evidence',
this just means that that particular scientist has overreached.
The enemies of science - and there are a real lot of these, you
cannot imagine how many - often use these over-reaches to lampoon
the scientific enterprise as a whole or for other unfriendly
purposes.

Let me advise you young man... do not use tables out of spite to
punish the elders of this church. It will do you no good and your
soul will be embittered.

Go in peace and bless you... I have to go and have my pills now...
 
D

dorayme

"jokla said:
I'm aware of this . . . I just find tables unhandy and not very style
friendly . . .

Huh! You mean the very opposite surely. You remind me here of the
Premier of Queensland who simply disarms every reporter's
criticism by jumping to their side and attacking his own
policies. No reporter on earth knows how to counter this and he
wins every time. They go off with their tails between their legs,
he smiles to himself off camera, the idiot voters think, well, he
handled them, never mind the content and he gets re-elected. (hey
Mark, interested in a little wager on the upcoming election
there?). Queensland has always been a bit odd.
 
Ad

Advertisements

D

dorayme

dorayme said:
One of the
prejudices that is extremely hard to shake is that it is wiser on
the whole to avoid using tables for layout purposes.

"to avoid" should have read "to use"

sorry.... actually the whole sentence should have been different
but this is least change...
 
Ad

Advertisements


Top