Re: Is using tables for page layout bad?

Ok, so it looked good in IE/NN6... but what's the deal with 4.0 or older
browsers. I hate being told that my browser is a piece of crap and to get a
new one or else. <shudder> And they could have made a much better designed
page by just converting it all to tables and 3.0 compliant tags. Sheesh.

Jami
Who is an upstart and likes designing so everyone can see.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Tamara" <tamara(at)abbeyink.com>
To: "HWG-Basics" <hwg-basics(at)hwg.org>
Sent: Thursday, April 05, 2001 7:32 PM
Subject: Re: Is using tables for page layout bad?


> At 06:51 PM 4/5/2001 -0400, Kevin Warrene wrote:
> >Ed,
> >
> >Using tables for page layout is the only way that I create a web page.
> >They are extremely versatile. They also allow you to create a type of
> >template as well for other web pages/sites.
>
> I use tables all the time -- I have to use tables, it's the only way to
> even come close to cross-browser compatibility.
>
> However, I believe there will be a point when the number of appliances
> accessing content on the web will result in quite a few posts about why
web
> *pages* won't render on a cell phone/pda/or refrigerator due to the nature
> of the appliance's *browser.* (I know, the old man just shudders at the
> thought).
>
> So, we now have something called XHTML which, on our end, uses CSS to
place
> items that are still better off tabled. But, those tables are probably not
> going to work on some of these appliances.
>
> For now, a good example is over at http://alistapart.com/ -- the site is
> fully compliant XHTML and uses CSS for placement of things like navigation
> that I still put in a table.
>
> Look at it in IE, look at it in NS 6, look again in NN4+
>
> {{shudder}}
>
> ...but folks, I have this feeling that this is the sort of thing we have
to
> look forward to as the *web* evolves.
>
> Having fun yet??
>
> <tamara />
>

HTML: hwg-basics mailing list archives, maintained by Webmasters @ IWA