Taking table-less CSS design far too far | | | re: Taking table-less CSS design far too far
ironcorona wrote:[color=blue]
> Andy Dingley <dingbat@codesmiths.com> wrote:
>[color=green]
>> http://thedailywtf.com/forums/thread/74148.aspx[/color]
>
> I see tables.
>[/color]
Yeah ironic, the forum abuses tables for layout while the topic is the
misguided attempt to avoid tables for clearly tabular data...
--
Take care,
Jonathan
-------------------
LITTLE WORKS STUDIO http://www.LittleWorksStudio.com | | | | re: Taking table-less CSS design far too far
Dylan Parry wrote:[color=blue]
> Andy Dingley <dingbat@codesmiths.com> wrote:
>[color=green]
>> http://thedailywtf.com/forums/thread/74148.aspx[/color]
>
> It's scary what some people think about tables. I really can't see where
> anyone gets the idea that tables shouldn't be used for tabular data![/color]
<snip>
Simply hearing someone make the slip of the tongue that "tables are
deprecated". http://smjg.port5.com/faqs/web/html/tablesdep.html
What next? People coding up a whole website using no element other than
DIV, and maybe SPAN as well?
Stewart. | | | | re: Taking table-less CSS design far too far
Stewart Gordon wrote:
[color=blue]
> Simply hearing someone make the slip of the tongue that "tables are
> deprecated".[/color]
You'd have to be pretty stupid to accept that sort of statement at face
value though! :) I can't (or rather don't want to) believe that anyone
who has any mind of their own wouldn't say "what? completely?" or
something similar.
--
Dylan Parry http://electricfreedom.org -- Where the Music Progressively Rocks! | | | | re: Taking table-less CSS design far too far
On Wed, 24 May 2006 15:15:31 +0100, Stewart Gordon <smjg_1998@yahoo.com>
wrote:
[color=blue]
> What next? People coding up a whole website using no element other than
> DIV, and maybe SPAN as well?[/color]
That's been here for a while now, haven't you noticed? :)
It amazes me how in such a short space of time we've gone from tag soup
loving CSS bashers to morons who have missed the whole point of CSS and
think tables are banned and that we now use DIVs and SPANs instead of
paragraphs and lists etc. Or worse still are the sites where they still
use table layouts but every cell contains a DIV wrapped around its
contents, or even DIVs around each paragraph, list or other block level
element. And that's before you consider too many class names being used,
most of which have names like "BlueLeftBar" or "SmallWhiteText" etc.
And it's going to get *much* worse because peoples' fixation with CSS and
purging themselves of tables hasn't got into full swing yet. Funny thing
is, many of the sites that use DIVs everywhere also loyally promote
Firefox. There's a standards bandwagon people have jumped on without
really knowing or caring what those standards mean. It started years ago
with doctypes, then using XHTML markup on pages served as HTML and now
they've all gone CSS crazy. I fear that in a couple of years time things
like incompatible DOMs, quirky CSS implementations, abusing tags for
layout (such as table layouts or blockquotes to indent text) or using
<font color="red" face="times" style="color:#ff0000;font-family:times"> so
that "browsers with and without CSS will display the page the same" will
seem trivial compared to the CSS soup that's out there and the problems
that brings.
But I think part of the blame has to go to messageboards and newsgroups
where people who do know tell those who don't that "You shouldn't use
tables and font tags. Use DIVs and SPANs instead" without spelling it out
to them that they're referring to layout and presentational effects. But
by the same token too many people have never been bothered to read the
specs or even a tutorial properly. They just skim-read a coupld of
paragraphs and messageboard posts and assume what is meant instead of
reading what is said.
| | | | re: Taking table-less CSS design far too far
_Stewart Gordon_ skrev | wrote | écrivit (24-05-2006 16:15):
[color=blue]
> What next? People coding up a whole website using no element other than
> DIV, and maybe SPAN as well?[/color]
Well, I did that!
Needless to say, it was an *experiment* in making a sort-of microformat
mimicking XHTML2. The purpose was to experiment (among others) with nesting of
<h> and <section> elements, and their styling with CSS...
But please, try this /only/ at home! http://www.design.olieu.net/files/divmania.html
--
Venlig hilsen | Kind regards | Cordialement
Frank
___________________________________________
Being a bit off-topic... | | | | re: Taking table-less CSS design far too far
On Wed, 24 May 2006 16:15:31 +0200, Stewart Gordon <smjg_1998@yahoo.com>
wrote:
[color=blue]
> What next? People coding up a whole website using no element other than
> DIV, and maybe SPAN as well?[/color]
Why use SPAN if you can use
DIV.inline { display: inline; }
???
--
Garmt de Vries
| | | | re: Taking table-less CSS design far too far
Garmt de Vries wrote:
[color=blue]
> Why use SPAN if you can use
>
> DIV.inline { display: inline; }[/color]
You can't put a div into a <h> or <p>, I'm sure there are others.
--
Brian O'Connor (ironcorona) | | | | re: Taking table-less CSS design far too far
_ironcorona_ skrev | wrote | écrivit (24-05-2006 18:52):
[color=blue]
> You can't put a div into a <h> or <p>, I'm sure there are others.[/color]
Why use <h> and <p> when you can use <div class="heading"> and <div
class="paragraph"> ;-)
--
Venlig hilsen | Kind regards | Cordialement
Frank | | | | re: Taking table-less CSS design far too far
Stewart Gordon wrote:[color=blue]
>
> Simply hearing someone make the slip of the tongue that "tables are
> deprecated".
>
> http://smjg.port5.com/faqs/web/html/tablesdep.html
>
> What next? People coding up a whole website using no element other than
> DIV, and maybe SPAN as well?[/color]
<html> is now deprecated | | | | re: Taking table-less CSS design far too far
Dylan Parry wrote:[color=blue]
> Stewart Gordon wrote:
>[color=green]
>>Simply hearing someone make the slip of the tongue that "tables are
>>deprecated".[/color]
>
> You'd have to be pretty stupid to accept that sort of statement at face
> value though! :) I can't (or rather don't want to) believe that anyone
> who has any mind of their own wouldn't say "what? completely?" or
> something similar.[/color]
"Never underestimate the power of human stupidity" - R. A. Heinlein
| | | | re: Taking table-less CSS design far too far
In article <dghgj19a5apy.dlg@dylanparry.com>,
Dylan Parry <usenet@dylanparry.com> wrote:
[color=blue]
> Andy Dingley <dingbat@codesmiths.com> wrote:
>[color=green]
> > http://thedailywtf.com/forums/thread/74148.aspx[/color]
>
> It's scary what some people think about tables. I really can't see where
> anyone gets the idea that tables shouldn't be used for tabular data![/color]
You could get to see this by studying the various scare campaigns
in the history of ideas. Sometimes Christian ministers and others
have to explain to folk that sex is ok under certain conditions...
--
dorayme | | | | re: Taking table-less CSS design far too far
In article <4474906b$0$15786$14726298@news.sunsite.dk>,
Frank Olieu <fr@nk.nospam> wrote:
[color=blue]
> _ironcorona_ skrev | wrote | écrivit (24-05-2006 18:52):
>[color=green]
> > You can't put a div into a <h> or <p>, I'm sure there are others.[/color]
>
> Why use <h> and <p> when you can use <div class="heading"> and <div
> class="paragraph"> ;-)[/color]
!
--
dorayme | | | | re: Taking table-less CSS design far too far
"dorayme" <doraymeRidThis@optusnet.com.au> skrev i meddelandet
news:doraymeRidThis-B08ADF.06552125052006@news-vip.optusnet.com.au...[color=blue]
> In article <4474906b$0$15786$14726298@news.sunsite.dk>,
> Frank Olieu <fr@nk.nospam> wrote:
>[color=green]
> > _ironcorona_ skrev | wrote | écrivit (24-05-2006 18:52):
> >[color=darkred]
> > > You can't put a div into a <h> or <p>, I'm sure there are others.[/color]
> >
> > Why use <h> and <p> when you can use <div class="heading"> and <div
> > class="paragraph"> ;-)[/color][/color]
If you use <div class="heading"> and <div class="paragraph"> you cannot use
<div class="section"> and <div class="subsection"> (where section is the
first level and subsection is the second) can you?
--
Luigi Donatello Asero https://www.scaiecat-spa-gigi.com/sv...-i-italien.php
我是æ„大利人 | | | | re: Taking table-less CSS design far too far
Frank Olieu wrote:[color=blue]
> Why use <h> and <p> when you can use <div class="heading"> and <div
> class="paragraph"> ;-)[/color]
And overall tables are completely dead because:
....
div.grid {display: table; width: 100%; border-spacing: 1em;}
div.grid ul {display: table-row;}
div.grid li {display: table-cell;
....
(a recent real life sample taken from one of newsgroups) | | | | re: Taking table-less CSS design far too far
In comp.infosystems. www.authoring.html Stewart Gordon <smjg_1998@yahoo.com> wrote:
| Dylan Parry wrote:
|> Andy Dingley <dingbat@codesmiths.com> wrote:
|>
|>> http://thedailywtf.com/forums/thread/74148.aspx
|>
|> It's scary what some people think about tables. I really can't see where
|> anyone gets the idea that tables shouldn't be used for tabular data!
| <snip>
|
| Simply hearing someone make the slip of the tongue that "tables are
| deprecated".
That's not surprising. Nor is it surprising that it is believed. Given
that from what some people say, it appears that many previously standard
features are depricated even before the replacement has been implemented
on all platforms, it certainly comes across that the web standards people
tend to follow paths like this.
| http://smjg.port5.com/faqs/web/html/tablesdep.html
|
| What next? People coding up a whole website using no element other than
| DIV, and maybe SPAN as well?
I think it will be hard to avoid a few. But inside the body, quite doable,
though not all styles can be presented on all browsers. | | | | re: Taking table-less CSS design far too far
VK wrote:
[color=blue]
> And overall tables are completely dead because:
> ....
> div.grid {display: table; width: 100%; border-spacing: 1em;}
> div.grid ul {display: table-row;}
> div.grid li {display: table-cell;[/color]
EVIL! The power of Christ compels thee.
--
Brian O'Connor (ironcorona)
| | | | re: Taking table-less CSS design far too far
Until css can size columns for the largest thing (or at least note the
position of any-thing and re-use it), tables win.
| | | | re: Taking table-less CSS design far too far
In comp.infosystems. www.authoring.html VK <schools_ring@yahoo.com> wrote:
|
| Frank Olieu wrote:
|> Why use <h> and <p> when you can use <div class="heading"> and <div
|> class="paragraph"> ;-)
|
| And overall tables are completely dead because:
| ...
| div.grid {display: table; width: 100%; border-spacing: 1em;}
| div.grid ul {display: table-row;}
| div.grid li {display: table-cell;
| ...
That's still tables. It's just now in CSS. And it does not work
on IE. Until such time as IE comes out in full support of tables
in CSS _and_ enough time passes for virtually everyone to install
that version of IE, then don't even bother pushing people to avoid
tables in HTML in lieu of tables in CSS (or of other methods that
don't actually give the same results). This could take two or three
years after IE7 comes out if IE7 has the support, and if IE7 can run
on versions of Windows from Win98 and Win2000 to the latest. It can
be even longer if you have to wait for the OS to be upgraded or to
be switched to Linux.
In the mean time, I'll be using elements TABLE, TR, and TD for my
layouts that can't be done by other means (and this is most of them)
and not losing a bit of sleep over it. | | | | re: Taking table-less CSS design far too far
Frank Olieu wrote:[color=blue]
> _Stewart Gordon_ skrev | wrote | écrivit (24-05-2006 16:15):
>[color=green]
>> What next? People coding up a whole website using no element other
>> than DIV, and maybe SPAN as well?[/color]
>
> Well, I did that![/color]
*snip*[color=blue]
> http://www.design.olieu.net/files/divmania.html[/color]
That's pretty cool, pity I can't read the content but it looks like filler
anyway. | | | | re: Taking table-less CSS design far too far
phil-news-nospam@ipal.net wrote:[color=blue]
> In the mean time, I'll be using elements TABLE, TR, and TD for my
> layouts that can't be done by other means (and this is most of them)[/color]
Do you mean "layouts that I can't do without tables because I don't
understand CSS well enough yet"? You can do any table layout using CSS
instead. | | | | re: Taking table-less CSS design far too far
"Luigi Donatello Asero" <jaggillarfotboll@telia.com> wrote:[color=blue]
>"dorayme" <doraymeRidThis@optusnet.com.au> skrev i meddelandet
>news:doraymeRidThis-B08ADF.06552125052006@news-vip.optusnet.com.au...[color=green]
>> In article <4474906b$0$15786$14726298@news.sunsite.dk>,
>> Frank Olieu <fr@nk.nospam> wrote:
>>[color=darkred]
>> > _ironcorona_ skrev | wrote | écrivit (24-05-2006 18:52):
>> >
>> > > You can't put a div into a <h> or <p>, I'm sure there are others.
>> >
>> > Why use <h> and <p> when you can use <div class="heading"> and <div
>> > class="paragraph"> ;-)[/color][/color]
>
>
>If you use <div class="heading"> and <div class="paragraph"> you cannot use
><div class="section"> and <div class="subsection"> (where section is the
>first level and subsection is the second) can you?[/color]
Of course you can (assuming you're silly enough to use divs instead of
real headings and paragraphs in the first place). Why do you think you
can't?
Steve
--
"My theories appal you, my heresies outrage you,
I never answer letters and you don't like my tie." - The Doctor
Steve Pugh <steve@pugh.net> <http://steve.pugh.net/> | | | | re: Taking table-less CSS design far too far
"VK" <schools_ring@yahoo.com> wrote:[color=blue]
>Frank Olieu wrote:[color=green]
>> Why use <h> and <p> when you can use <div class="heading"> and <div
>> class="paragraph"> ;-)[/color]
>
>And overall tables are completely dead because:
>...
>div.grid {display: table; width: 100%; border-spacing: 1em;}
>div.grid ul {display: table-row;}
>div.grid li {display: table-cell;
>...
>
>(a recent real life sample taken from one of newsgroups)[/color]
You're joking. Or trolling. Or both.
Steve
--
"My theories appal you, my heresies outrage you,
I never answer letters and you don't like my tie." - The Doctor
Steve Pugh <steve@pugh.net> <http://steve.pugh.net/> | | | | re: Taking table-less CSS design far too far
Stewart Gordon wrote:
[color=blue]
> What next? People coding up a whole website using no element other than
> DIV, and maybe SPAN as well?[/color]
You'll need <title> too if you want to validate. Forget SPAN though --
what use is that when you've got "display:inline". Don't need IMG when you
can set a background image on a DIV. And what's the point in A when you
can just use a bit of onclick Javascript magic? ;-)
--
Toby A Inkster BSc (Hons) ARCS
Contact Me ~ http://tobyinkster.co.uk/contact | | | | re: Taking table-less CSS design far too far
Steve Pugh wrote:[color=blue]
> "VK" <schools_ring@yahoo.com> wrote:[color=green]
> >Frank Olieu wrote:[color=darkred]
> >> Why use <h> and <p> when you can use <div class="heading"> and <div
> >> class="paragraph"> ;-)[/color]
> >
> >And overall tables are completely dead because:
> >...
> >div.grid {display: table; width: 100%; border-spacing: 1em;}
> >div.grid ul {display: table-row;}
> >div.grid li {display: table-cell;
> >...
> >
> >(a recent real life sample taken from one of newsgroups)[/color]
>
> You're joking. Or trolling. Or both.[/color]
That's wrong with you? Look at the previous post I was quoting to reply
to. This extract of code taken from one of Big 8 groups was intended to
continue the joke.
OK, for whoever doesn't have it at all: the statement "And overall
tables are completely dead because: <code follows>" was a /joke/
/ha-ha/ / :-) /
(Here you suppose to smile).
It is a joke to drop table because "daddy said no" and then recreate
it's exact behavior on div's because "daddy didn't mention that". | | | | re: Taking table-less CSS design far too far
On Wed, 24 May 2006 15:21:43 +0100, Dylan Parry <usenet@dylanparry.com>
wrote:
[color=blue]
>You'd have to be pretty stupid to accept that sort of statement at face
>value though! :)[/color]
What if it's combined with "Proof by Authority" and Internet anonymity
though? If you're unfamiliar with the subject and you read something in
an ostensibly technical newsgroup , there is a general tendency to trust
it unless you specifically know better. It's not easy to know that
certain voluminous posters are actually clueless, unless you already
know the subject yourself.
| | | | re: Taking table-less CSS design far too far
On Thu, 25 May 2006 08:32:55 +0100, Steve Pugh <steve@pugh.net> wrote:
[color=blue]
>"VK" <schools_ring@yahoo.com> wrote:[/color]
[color=blue][color=green]
>>(a recent real life sample taken from one of newsgroups)[/color]
>
>You're joking. Or trolling. Or both.[/color]
Or stupid. This _was_ a recent example in a thread on "Are CSS tables
still evil <table>s" ? Both the thread's assertion and VK seemed
equally wrong-headed. | | | | re: Taking table-less CSS design far too far
Andy Dingley wrote:
[color=blue][color=green]
>>You'd have to be pretty stupid to accept that sort of statement at face
>>value though! :)[/color]
>
> What if it's combined with "Proof by Authority" and Internet anonymity
> though?[/color]
I suppose you are right. It's perceived authority figures and Milgram
all over again.
--
Dylan Parry http://webpageworkshop.co.uk -- FREE Web tutorials and references | | | | re: Taking table-less CSS design far too far
VK wrote:[color=blue]
> Steve Pugh wrote:[color=green]
> > "VK" <schools_ring@yahoo.com> wrote:[color=darkred]
> > >Frank Olieu wrote:
> > >> Why use <h> and <p> when you can use <div class="heading"> and <div
> > >> class="paragraph"> ;-)
> > >
> > >And overall tables are completely dead because:
> > >...
> > >div.grid {display: table; width: 100%; border-spacing: 1em;}
> > >div.grid ul {display: table-row;}
> > >div.grid li {display: table-cell;
> > >...
> > >
> > >(a recent real life sample taken from one of newsgroups)[/color]
> >
> > You're joking. Or trolling. Or both.[/color]
>
> That's wrong with you?[/color]
With you we can never tell when you're joiking, when you're trolling
and when you're just having one of your paranoid delusions. As there
were no W3C conspiracy theories in your post we can rule out the last
one in this case.
[color=blue]
> Look at the previous post I was quoting to reply
> to. This extract of code taken from one of Big 8 groups was intended to
> continue the joke.[/color]
I wrote the code you quoted. http://groups.google.com/group/comp....1a2764edce726a http://steve.pugh.net/test/css-table-demo.html
If you want to play with my toys expect me to join in the game. ;-)
More seriously, the code was written as a theoretical exercise ('cos IE
makes it impractical to use in real life) to demonstrate how CSS can
replace tables used for layout.
Replacing data tables, or replacing headings and paragraphs, with
divs+CSS is just stupid and deserves to be laughed at.
Steve | | | | re: Taking table-less CSS design far too far
Andy Dingley wrote:[color=blue]
> On Thu, 25 May 2006 08:32:55 +0100, Steve Pugh <steve@pugh.net> wrote:[color=green]
> >"VK" <schools_ring@yahoo.com> wrote:[/color]
>[color=green][color=darkred]
> >>(a recent real life sample taken from one of newsgroups)[/color]
> >
> >You're joking. Or trolling. Or both.[/color]
>
> Or stupid. This _was_ a recent example in a thread on "Are CSS tables
> still evil <table>s" ? Both the thread's assertion and VK seemed
> equally wrong-headed.[/color]
It was an example I wrote.
It served its purpose - as a theoretical demo how CSS can be used to
replace layout tables in compliant browsers. It was never meant to
imply that CSS be used to replace data tables and anyone using it as
such is either joking, trolling or, yes, stupid.
Steve | | | | re: Taking table-less CSS design far too far
Steve Pugh wrote:[color=blue]
> I wrote the code you quoted.[/color]
Oh-oh... :-)
[color=blue]
> If you want to play with my toys expect me to join in the game. ;-)[/color]
But no bats, OK? :-)
[color=blue]
> More seriously, the code was written as a theoretical exercise ('cos IE
> makes it impractical to use in real life) to demonstrate how CSS can
> replace tables used for layout.
> Replacing data tables, or replacing headings and paragraphs, with
> divs+CSS is just stupid and deserves to be laughed at.[/color]
Glad we are agreed on that one.
If you had one in the post I quoted, I would never use it: ciwas is
full of similar samples (but deadly serious, alas).
If I added a smily in my most, I wouldn't need to comment on it later.
The power of smilies in the Usenet...
| | | | re: Taking table-less CSS design far too far
In comp.infosystems. www.authoring.html Nik Coughlin <nrkn.com@gmail.com> wrote:
| phil-news-nospam@ipal.net wrote:
|> In the mean time, I'll be using elements TABLE, TR, and TD for my
|> layouts that can't be done by other means (and this is most of them)
|
| Do you mean "layouts that I can't do without tables because I don't
| understand CSS well enough yet"? You can do any table layout using CSS
| instead.
But CSS tables don't work in all browsers. That was the whole point of
my post. While I dislike Windows and IE and just about anything else of
Microsoft, I don't carry that to the extreme of making my site unreadable
or have problems for readers using IE.
So wait a few years, then you can do it all in CSS, hopefully. | | | | re: Taking table-less CSS design far too far
In comp.infosystems. www.authoring.html Steve Pugh <steve.grumpy@gmail.com> wrote:
| With you we can never tell when you're joiking, when you're trolling
| and when you're just having one of your paranoid delusions. As there
| were no W3C conspiracy theories in your post we can rule out the last
| one in this case.
"Never ascribe to malice that which can be explained by incompetence."
--Someone who's name I forgot
| More seriously, the code was written as a theoretical exercise ('cos IE
| makes it impractical to use in real life) to demonstrate how CSS can
| replace tables used for layout.
|
| Replacing data tables, or replacing headings and paragraphs, with
| divs+CSS is just stupid and deserves to be laughed at.
So I leave the tables in HTML. Works fine as is. | | | | re: Taking table-less CSS design far too far
In comp.infosystems. www.authoring.html VK <schools_ring@yahoo.com> wrote:
| It is a joke to drop table because "daddy said no" and then recreate
| it's exact behavior on div's because "daddy didn't mention that".
So don't drop tables.
Of couse, if you want to anyway, you can. And it might even work in
IE7 or IE8 or IE9 or so in several years. | | | | re: Taking table-less CSS design far too far
phil-news-nospam@ipal.net wrote:[color=blue]
> In comp.infosystems. www.authoring.html Nik Coughlin
> <nrkn.com@gmail.com> wrote:[color=green]
>> phil-news-nospam@ipal.net wrote:[color=darkred]
>>> In the mean time, I'll be using elements TABLE, TR, and TD for my
>>> layouts that can't be done by other means (and this is most of them)[/color]
>>
>> Do you mean "layouts that I can't do without tables because I don't
>> understand CSS well enough yet"? You can do any table layout using
>> CSS instead.[/color]
>
> But CSS tables don't work in all browsers. That was the whole point
> of
> my post. While I dislike Windows and IE and just about anything else
> of Microsoft, I don't carry that to the extreme of making my site
> unreadable
> or have problems for readers using IE.
>
> So wait a few years, then you can do it all in CSS, hopefully.[/color]
You don't need CSS tables to reproduce a layout that was done with tables in
CSS. The CSS-only version is not going to be a 1:1 conversion from the
table version (<td> isn't just converted to <div>), it requires a different
methodology and mindset, but the CSS version will look and work the same as
the table version. Sure, you have to hack around some IE bugs, but it can
be done. | | | | re: Taking table-less CSS design far too far
phil-news-nospam@ipal.net wrote:[color=blue]
> In comp.infosystems. www.authoring.html VK <schools_ring@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>[color=green]
>> It is a joke to drop table because "daddy said no" and then recreate
>> it's exact behavior on div's because "daddy didn't mention that".[/color]
>
> So don't drop tables.
>
> Of couse, if you want to anyway, you can. And it might even work in
> IE7 or IE8 or IE9 or so in several years.[/color]
You can do table-less layouts with CSS that even work in IE 5. Any table
layout can be reproduced like this. It just takes a bit of effort to change
your mindset from table layout to CSS layout and to learn the various
browser quirks and how to work around them. | | | | re: Taking table-less CSS design far too far
VK <schools_ring@yahoo.com> wrote:[color=blue]
> | It is a joke to drop table because "daddy said no" and then recreate
> | it's exact behavior on div's because "daddy didn't mention that".[/color]
phil-news-nos...@ipal.net wrote:[color=blue]
> So don't drop tables.[/color]
So I never did.
We were talking about someone who did (linked sample in OT). Overall
these spiritual researches and starvations about tabular data / tabular
layout are very specific to (X)HTML only. Say Java programmer aware of
GridLayout and GridBagConstaints would decide that here are talking on
Medieval Chinese :-)
The axiom itself that data is it is implies some layout and excludes
some other is highly questionnable (to say the least). It is the same
as to say that an ingot of copper contans in potention a copper ball
but excludes in any potention a copper cube.
Yet a la 90's design with invisible table cells holding the page layout
should be avoided unless it brings to much of non-compensated troubles.
| | | | re: Taking table-less CSS design far too far
In message
<doraymeRidThis-FDC299.06495025052006@news-vip.optusnet.com.au>, dorayme
<doraymeRidThis@optusnet.com.au> writes
[color=blue]
>Sometimes Christian ministers and others have to explain to folk that
>sex is ok under certain conditions...[/color]
Presumably that's what they tell the choirboys...
--
Andy Mabbett
Say "NO!" to compulsory ID Cards: <http://www.no2id.net/>
Free Our Data: <http://www.freeourdata.org.uk>
|  |
| | |  /bytes/about
We are a network of experts and professionals in IT and software development that help one another with answers to tough questions and share insights.
Get the best answers to your questions from over 226,471 network members.
|
