On 2 May 2003, at 14:42, rudy wrote:

> > One of the problems with CSS (both CSS1 and CSS2)
> > is that while they *say* "Use tables only to display
> > tabular information, not for layout" they don't provide
> > the tools needed to completely replace tables as
> > general- purpose layout tools.
> 
> i've got to disagree with this

That's what lists are for. ;-)

> i completely share your frustration at learning the new
> method

Wrong assumption. I am not frustrated at "learning the 
new method" (since I am not doing that).

> however, this does not negate that the tools are all
> there, and they are more than adequately general-purpose
> in nature

Perhaps, but they are much more cumbersome to use 
and still require too many workarounds.

> we are the ones with the shortcomings
> 
> expecting css to be like tables for layout is like using a
> hammer on a screw

It should be at least as powerful and easy to use. It is 
(maybe) as powerful, but it is very cumbersome to use.

I think the fundamental problem is that some people on 
the CSS standards teams have decided (for idiotic 
philsophical reasons, AFAI can see) that tables must 
be used only for tabular data. Coupled with their 
apparent (and to me, similarly idiotic and completely 
inappropriate) effort to somehow give HTML the exact 
positioning et al controls that hard copy media have, 
they're producing something that is unnecessarily hard 
to use. If your wordprocessor made you use low level 
positioning commands to do column or table layouts 
(the way CSS does), nobody would use either of those 
layouts in hard copy.

No, I still think CSS has a long ways to go when it 
comes to replacing tables as layout devices.

David
dvjones(at)ksbe.edu
 

• Web Designer Courses
• Off the Shelf Training Courses

HWG hwg-techniques mailing list archives, maintained by Webmasters @ IWA