Nick Kew wrote:[color=blue]
> In article <eUS1c.3624$Wl6.1239438521@newssvr11.news.prodigy. com>,
> "Millissa" <millissab@sbcglobal.net> writes:[color=green]
>> If someone can help me with examples of or info on how to create an
>> advanced tables for the layout on my site, I would be very grateful![/color]
>
> Advanced tables for layout are a tool for 1995/6 webdesigners who
> haven't updated their skills to 1998 or beyond.[/color]
[snip]
Not true, although the details depend on your definition of "advanced tables".
Table-layout has advanced a lot since 1995/6 (and since 1998):
- Modern use of layout-tables coexists with CSS. Attributes of the tables tend
to be replaced by CSS rules. Obviously, the content of the tables is typically
controlled by CSS. Webdesigners who use this combination will have gained
their CSS skills in or after 1998, and probably in the last year or 2. (I
accept that there are exceptions).
- Browsers have got much better at handling layout-tables since then. For
example, IBM announced its speaking browser, HPR, in 1998. Opera has been
making progress for small screens from about 2002. (Such developments will
probably continue). This is why the Web Accessibility Initiative revised its
position about layout-tables in April 1999, to say, in effect, they were OK if
they linearised.
- Authoring tools deliberately exploiting layout-tables have steadily improved
over the last few years. (I'm not sure they even existed in 1995/6).
(Personally, I think some such tools are "dangerous", because they lead to
uncontrollable code. But they may be just right for beginners).
- Techniques & tutorials for effective exploitation of layout-tables have been
developed & published for years, and many have been published in the last few
years. The best tutorials exploit the fact that tables are aligned to the best
principles of the web, with the author expressing a preference, and the
browser taking into consideration the user's settings & viewport, and
delivering the best result it can.
I suspect that an assumption that "table-layout hasn't progressed for several
years" accounts for some of the invalid criticism of layout-tables published
on the web. Some comparisons appear to compare table-layout that is several
years old, perhaps using HTML 3.2, perhaps produced by novices, with modern
CSS-positioning layout, produced recently by experts. The result is obvious,
and totally irrelevant.
Some companies appear to make a lot of money out of their table-layout web
sites & pages. Would they make significantly more money out of
tableless-layout web sites & pages?
Some organisations, skilled in mass communication, appear to believe they can
mass-communicate via table-layout web sites & pages. They haven't blindly
transcribed their other media-types to the web. The BBC hasn't copied their
radio & TV format to the web! On-line news services haven't made their web
pages look like newspapers - just buy a real newspaper and compare! All of
these appear to have matched existing content to web-sympathetic page layout.
Do most users know or care whether the format is table-layout or
tableless-layout?
What business case could be made to the owners of these web sites to convince
them that they should use tableless-layout instead? What could be said to
users to make them aware of advantages, if any, to them? I think I could make
out a supportable case, but most arguments I've seen don't stand up to
scrutiny. (Perhaps I'll try to publish an objective evaluation of the
advantages of tableless-layout!)
People who cannot accept that table-layout is ever legitimate are doomed to
futile rants against table-layout, while the overwhelming majority of web
designers/authors & web sites/pages worldwide succeed without such concerns.
Why should that cease within the next decade?
--
Barry Pearson
http://www.Barry.Pearson.name/photography/ http://www.BirdsAndAnimals.info/ http://www.ChildSupportAnalysis.co.uk/ 
Creating Advanced Tables For Layouts in HTML? 
