Good, then we agree that (1) CSS has it's good points 
is at least as powerful as tables for layout purposes, (2) 
it's not quite there yet, and (3) is getting there.

On 2 May 2003, at 18:49, Darrell King wrote:

> >> Going
> >> "table-less" certainly doesn't have to be a requirement
> >> for "good CSS."
> 
> No, but I believe the intention is to make the document's
> code reflect it's structural flow as opposed to making
> presentation the focus of that code.
> 
> This is a worthwhile goal, IMHO, as it provides the
> foundation for another Holy Grail: presentation of the
> same document across multiple platforms with a simple
> change of the stylesheet.

Sigh, something HTML could have had in full 
completeness from its very beginnings, if only those 
who developed it from SGML had kept the basic SGML 
separation between content, format, and rendering 
device.

> Or maybe I'm just one of those weirdoes who is crazy to
> believe that the Web is more and more commonly consisting
> of platforms other then visually-oriented PC/Mac-based
> browsers...?

I agree re accessibility, but I don't think the Web is 
there yet. It may not get there, either, depending on a 
whole lot of factors beyond the control of technology 
standards committees (indeed, beyond technology 
itself).

> In any case, I believe that the committees themselves
> would agree that there is work yet to be done on both CSS
> itself and on platform support for it in general.  So
> would I.  I guess the question is whether we are focusing
> on that issue or on what we *can* get out of CSS
> today...:).

Oh, if the issue isn't mentioned, the awareness won't 
necessarily be out there, and the issue might not be 
addressed. I'm not one who trusts committees of any 
sort to get things done right unless people keep after 
them to do it right!

> Again, here is a design that meets the specs of the
> original request that started this thread, done without
> tables:
> 
> http://webctr.com/css-footer.html
> 
> If a person would prefer to have the design liquid, so
> that it stretched with the page, that can also be done
> simply by replacing the pixel widths in some of the basic
> block-level elements with percentile values. I hard-coded
> the width because that is what the original poster
> specified.

I'll not send your very-nicely-done example page on to a 
friend of mine, though. He has CSS disabled in his 
browers because of design abuse (e.g., using CSS to 
force incredibly small type sizes or bad color 
combinations on visitors). ;-)  

> There have been plenty of other links presented in this
> thread showing many ways to successfully achieve similar
> ends.  I think it might be a bit of overkill to write off
> CSS in general just because it's not possible to use a
> floating bottom footer with a completely absolutely
> positioned layout (which is the problem that started the
> thread).
> 
> Perhaps I am missing something, but I personally am very
> excited about the improved level of support the newest
> browsers have provided us. Being primarily a programmer, I
> guess I tend to feel more comfortable thinking about a
> document in terms of it's structural layout than it's
> visual appearance...:). Of course the latter is vital when
> building sites, but I believe I can achieve the same
> results with CSS that I used to get with tables.

Agreed. Just takes more work IMHO. Work that could 
have been alleviated very easily by simply using tables 
(which are, after all, structural elements) as layout tools.

> And, after a year of studying and of "try, try again",
> it's not any harder for me to code the CSS than it is to
> write a table!

Yep, a year of studying and work to make CSS do what 
could be done quickly with a table ... 

> :)
> 
> D
> 
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "David Jones" <dvjones(at)ksbe.edu>
> 
> ... Just
> pointed out that CSS isn't quite there yet, and IMHO
> this is partly due to the CSS standards committee and some
> of its decisions. You can certainly use tables as layout
> devices and use CSS at the same time. Going "table-less"
> certainly doesn't have to be a requirement for "good CSS."

David
dvjones(at)ksbe.edu


 

• Web Designer Courses
• Off the Shelf Training Courses

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