468,241 Members | 1,590 Online
Bytes | Developer Community
New Post

Home Posts Topics Members FAQ

Post your question to a community of 468,241 developers. It's quick & easy.

Is the end of HTML as we know it?

Every respected Web-authoring Guru says that.
This is the era of table-less design, CSS code, XHTML compliant
websites.
Separate layout from content.

There's no reason to use tables any more.
Everything can be done with CSS.
Tables are so 2002ish ...

Do you agree with that?
I don't.
I've run into many situations where I just couldn't achieve the
desired effect in different browsers without using tables.
But it could be that I'm not well versed on the intricacies of CSS ...

Nov 3 '07 #1
136 4186
rf

"1001 Webs" <10******@gmail.comwrote in message
news:11**********************@57g2000hsv.googlegro ups.com...
Every respected Web-authoring Guru says that.
This is the era of table-less design, CSS code, XHTML compliant
websites.
Separate layout from content.

There's no reason to use tables any more.
Everything can be done with CSS.
Tables are so 2002ish ...

Do you agree with that?
I don't.
I've run into many situations where I just couldn't achieve the
desired effect in different browsers without using tables.
Sometimes the only way is to use a table. Sometimes. Only sometimes and only
for a very small part of a page.

One of those times is, of course, if one is offering up tabular data, which
point you seem to have missed.
But it could be that I'm not well versed on the intricacies of CSS ...
Given the site you offered up for review over at alt.html.critique I would
have to agree with this.

--
Richard.
Nov 3 '07 #2
1001 Webs wrote:
Every respected Web-authoring Guru says that.
Really?
This is the era of table-less design, CSS code, XHTML compliant
websites.
Separate layout from content.
And guess what the content is marked up with? (Hint: HTML.) So either
you or whoever's prognostications you're reading is confused.

Is there some reason you had to post this two five newsgroups?
Nov 3 '07 #3
On Nov 3, 3:35 pm, 1001 Webs <1001w...@gmail.comwrote:
Every respected Web-authoring Guru says that.
This is the era of table-less design, CSS code, XHTML compliant
websites.
Separate layout from content.

There's no reason to use tables any more.
Everything can be done with CSS.
Tables are so 2002ish ...

Do you agree with that?
I don't.
I've run into many situations where I just couldn't achieve the
desired effect in different browsers without using tables.
But it could be that I'm not well versed on the intricacies of CSS ...
Tables are the easiest
If you need something simple use tables

Nov 3 '07 #4

mic...@gmail.com wrote:
On Nov 3, 3:35 pm, 1001 Webs <1001w...@gmail.comwrote:
Every respected Web-authoring Guru says that.
This is the era of table-less design, CSS code, XHTML compliant
websites.
Separate layout from content.

There's no reason to use tables any more.
Everything can be done with CSS.
Tables are so 2002ish ...

Do you agree with that?
I don't.
I've run into many situations where I just couldn't achieve the
desired effect in different browsers without using tables.
But it could be that I'm not well versed on the intricacies of CSS ...

Tables are the easiest
If you need something simple use tables
That's not true. CSS is simple and more powerfull then layout tables.
As an example check out this template I made.
http://freewebdesign.awardspace.biz/temp/template.html
--
Regards Chad. http://freewebdesign.awardspace.biz

Nov 3 '07 #5
mi****@gmail.com wrote:
On Nov 3, 3:35 pm, 1001 Webs <1001w...@gmail.comwrote:
>Every respected Web-authoring Guru says that.
This is the era of table-less design, CSS code, XHTML compliant
websites.
Separate layout from content.

There's no reason to use tables any more.
Everything can be done with CSS.
Tables are so 2002ish ...

Do you agree with that?
I don't.
I've run into many situations where I just couldn't achieve the
desired effect in different browsers without using tables.
But it could be that I'm not well versed on the intricacies of CSS ...

Tables are the easiest
If you need something simple use tables
See if you feel that way after editing a site with a half dozen nested
tables with row and column spans...

--
Take care,

Jonathan
-------------------
LITTLE WORKS STUDIO
http://www.LittleWorksStudio.com
Nov 3 '07 #6
1001 Webs wrote:
>
There's no reason to use tables any more.
Do you agree with that?
yawn

This is a boring subject that is only brought up by clueless, lazy
people that haven't bothered reading the newsgroup archives.
I don't.
But it could be that I'm not well versed on the intricacies of CSS ...
indeed

--
Berg
Nov 3 '07 #7
1001 Webs <10******@gmail.comwrote:
>Every respected Web-authoring Guru says that.
This is the era of table-less design, CSS code, XHTML compliant
websites.
Separate layout from content.

There's no reason to use tables any more.
Everything can be done with CSS.
Tables are so 2002ish ...

Do you agree with that?
No. On two counts:

1) Not EVERY respected web-authoring guru says that, only some.
2) It's bollocks <g>

>I don't.
Ditto!
>I've run into many situations where I just couldn't achieve the
desired effect in different browsers without using tables.
But it could be that I'm not well versed on the intricacies of CSS ...
Tables are appropriate for table layouts. They also work great for
some other layouts.

CSS is a distinct and separate system for suggesting colours, sizes,
margins, paddings, line spacing. typefaces, and lots of other things.
CSS and tables are as distinct as beer and wine. One does not negate
the other.

X
Nov 3 '07 #8
Chaddy2222 <sp***********************@yahoo.com.auwrote:
>
mic...@gmail.com wrote:
>On Nov 3, 3:35 pm, 1001 Webs <1001w...@gmail.comwrote:
Every respected Web-authoring Guru says that.
This is the era of table-less design, CSS code, XHTML compliant
websites.
Separate layout from content.

There's no reason to use tables any more.
Everything can be done with CSS.
Tables are so 2002ish ...

Do you agree with that?
I don't.
I've run into many situations where I just couldn't achieve the
desired effect in different browsers without using tables.
But it could be that I'm not well versed on the intricacies of CSS ...

Tables are the easiest
If you need something simple use tables
That's not true. CSS is simple and more powerfull then layout tables.
Rubbish!

Two columns, two rows, resizeable, cross browser compataible:

<table>
<tr>
<tdCell one</td>
<tdCell two</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<tdCell three</td>
<tdCell four</td>
</tr>
</table>

That's simplicity. It's also felxible.

CSS layout is a nightmare. Unreliable, not only because it's suggested
and not required, but also because it varies between browsers and runs
into problems with resizing.

X
Nov 3 '07 #9
Secret Agent X wrote:
Chaddy2222 <sp***********************@yahoo.com.auwrote:
>mic...@gmail.com wrote:
>>On Nov 3, 3:35 pm, 1001 Webs <1001w...@gmail.comwrote:
Every respected Web-authoring Guru says that.
This is the era of table-less design, CSS code, XHTML compliant
websites.
Separate layout from content.

There's no reason to use tables any more.
Everything can be done with CSS.
Tables are so 2002ish ...

Do you agree with that?
I don't.
I've run into many situations where I just couldn't achieve the
desired effect in different browsers without using tables.
But it could be that I'm not well versed on the intricacies of CSS ...
Tables are the easiest
If you need something simple use tables
That's not true. CSS is simple and more powerfull then layout tables.

Rubbish!

Two columns, two rows, resizeable, cross browser compataible:

<table>
<tr>
<tdCell one</td>
<tdCell two</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<tdCell three</td>
<tdCell four</td>
</tr>
</table>

That's simplicity. It's also felxible.
Now let's see you make it fluid.
CSS layout is a nightmare. Unreliable, not only because it's suggested
and not required, but also because it varies between browsers and runs
into problems with resizing.

X
It's not a nightmare if you understand it. And if you want something to
look *exactly* like you design it, create a PDF. I'd prefer to have
fluid designs which adjust to the size of the user's window.

--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.
js*******@attglobal.net
==================

Nov 3 '07 #10
Well bust mah britches and call me cheeky, on Sat, 03 Nov 2007 13:35:44 GMT
1001 Webs scribed:
Every respected Web-authoring Guru says that.
This is the era of table-less design, CSS code, XHTML compliant
websites.
Separate layout from content.

There's no reason to use tables any more.
Everything can be done with CSS.
Tables are so 2002ish ...

Do you agree with that?
I disagree with anyone who agrees with any absolute statement.
Unequivocally.
I don't.
I've run into many situations where I just couldn't achieve the
desired effect in different browsers without using tables.
But it could be that I'm not well versed on the intricacies of CSS ...
So then your opinion is based on an uncertain foundation. And the point
is...?

--
Bone Ur
Cavemen have formidable pheromones.
Nov 3 '07 #11
Chaddy2222 <sp***********************@yahoo.com.auwrites:
Tables are the easiest
If you need something simple use tables
That's not true. CSS is simple and more powerfull then layout tables.
As an example check out this template I made.
http://freewebdesign.awardspace.biz/temp/template.html
While I agree with you that CSS adequately provides for layout, your
example not impressive.

On my browsers (galeon, iceweasel), there were anamolies. The left
panel is shifted down about 0.5em from the right panel. That is, there
is a yellow space between it and the "header", which the right panel
lacks. As a result, not only is there a perhaps undesired yellow space
below the left panel and the footer that is wider than that below the
right panel.

Apparently it is the result of using the KompoZer utility, and it does
not speak much for it. The stylesheet looks confused (the navbar div
seems to be within the header div). As a template, should not the
margins be omitted, or at least set ot defaults?

--

Haines Brown, KB1GRM

Nov 3 '07 #12
On 3 Nov, 19:49, Haines Brown <bro...@teufel.hartford-hwp.comwrote:
Chaddy2222 <spamlovermailbox-sicur...@yahoo.com.auwrites:
Tables are the easiest
If you need something simple use tables
That's not true. CSS is simple and more powerfull then layout tables.
As an example check out this template I made.
http://freewebdesign.awardspace.biz/temp/template.html

While I agree with you that CSS adequately provides for layout, your
example not impressive.
That's the best thing you get until you have to nest those divs.
On my browsers (galeon, iceweasel), there were anamolies. The left
panel is shifted down about 0.5em from the right panel. That is, there
is a yellow space between it and the "header", which the right panel
lacks. As a result, not only is there a perhaps undesired yellow space
below the left panel and the footer that is wider than that below the
right panel.
Even the a simple table is better.

Nov 3 '07 #13
On Nov 3, 2:50 pm, "rf" <r...@invalid.comwrote:
"1001 Webs" <1001w...@gmail.comwrote in message

news:11**********************@57g2000hsv.googlegro ups.com...
Every respected Web-authoring Guru says that.
This is the era of table-less design, CSS code, XHTML compliant
websites.
Separate layout from content.
There's no reason to use tables any more.
Everything can be done with CSS.
Tables are so 2002ish ...
Do you agree with that?
I don't.
I've run into many situations where I just couldn't achieve the
desired effect in different browsers without using tables.

Sometimes the only way is to use a table. Sometimes. Only sometimes and only
for a very small part of a page.

One of those times is, of course, if one is offering up tabular data, which
point you seem to have missed.
Tabular data cannot be displayed with CSS?
But it could be that I'm not well versed on the intricacies of CSS ...

Given the site you offered up for review over at alt.html.critique I would
have to agree with this.
Be more specific, please

Nov 3 '07 #14
On Nov 3, 3:49 pm, Harlan Messinger
<hmessinger.removet...@comcast.netwrote:
1001 Webs wrote:
Every respected Web-authoring Guru says that.

Really?
This is the era of table-less design, CSS code, XHTML compliant
websites.
Separate layout from content.

And guess what the content is marked up with? (Hint: HTML.) So either
you or whoever's prognostications you're reading is confused.
W3 recommends the use of CSS
CSS implementation is actually more than 10 years old.
As far back as 17 December 1996 W3C published CSS level 1
Recommendation (CSS1):
http://www.w3.org/Press/CSS1-REC-PR.html

"The design community has confirmed that using CSS promotes beauty
while making it easier and less expensive to build sites, " said Bert
Bos, W3C Style Activity Lead and one of the original co-authors of the
specification that became CSS level 1, published on 17 December 1996.
http://www.w3.org/Style/CSS10/reactions.html
Is there some reason you had to post this two five newsgroups?
A very good one, in my humble opinion: because it's relevant to all of
them.
I always like to get second opinions, specially from people who are in
the field.
Nov 3 '07 #15
On Nov 3, 5:37 pm, Bergamot <berga...@visi.comwrote:
1001 Webs wrote:
There's no reason to use tables any more.
Do you agree with that?

yawn

This is a boring subject that is only brought up by clueless, lazy
people that haven't bothered reading the newsgroup archives.
All depends on what newsgroup archives you bother to read, you know?
I don't.
But it could be that I'm not well versed on the intricacies of CSS ...

indeed
And I presume you certainly are?
Ain't you?

Nov 3 '07 #16
1001 Webs wrote:
On Nov 3, 2:50 pm, "rf" <r...@invalid.comwrote:
>>
Sometimes the only way is to use a table.

One of those times is, of course, if one is offering up tabular data, which
point you seem to have missed.
Tabular data cannot be displayed with CSS?
You could, but why would you want to? Tables are intended for tabular
data. Use the right markup for the job.

--
Berg
Nov 3 '07 #17
On Nov 3, 2:09 pm, Jerry Stuckle <jstuck...@attglobal.netwrote:
It's not a nightmare if you understand it.
True, but CSS != fluid design
And if you want something to
look *exactly* like you design it, create a PDF.
That is not true at all. While it may not look exactly the same on
100% of the visitors, you can design it to look the same on the
overwhelming majority of visitors. If it were not this way the
corporate world would be rushing to use fluid design. But they
aren't, they are using fixed width. Because that is what people want,
and that is what best suits the corporate world.
I'd prefer to have
fluid designs which adjust to the size of the user's window.
And the key to your statement is "I'd prefer...."

I prefer fixed width. So why is what I prefer wrong, and what you
prefer right?

It isn't. It is a preference. Neither of us is right or wrong.

Nov 3 '07 #18
1001 Webs wrote:
On Nov 3, 5:37 pm, Bergamot <berga...@visi.comwrote:
>1001 Webs wrote:
There's no reason to use tables any more.

This is a boring subject that is only brought up by clueless, lazy
people that haven't bothered reading the newsgroup archives.
All depends on what newsgroup archives you bother to read, you know?
Hmmm... that just tells me you did little or no research on your own.
But it could be that I'm not well versed on the intricacies of CSS ...

indeed
And I presume you certainly are?
That isn't relevant, but based on what I've seen of your work, then I'm
a lot farther along than you. But instead of doing some learning on your
own to improve your own understanding, you decide to waste people's time
with the tired 'tables vs css' drivel.

--
Berg
Nov 3 '07 #19
On 2007-11-03, 1001 Webs <10******@gmail.comwrote:
On Nov 3, 2:50 pm, "rf" <r...@invalid.comwrote:
>"1001 Webs" <1001w...@gmail.comwrote in message

news:11**********************@57g2000hsv.googlegr oups.com...
Every respected Web-authoring Guru says that.
This is the era of table-less design, CSS code, XHTML compliant
websites.
Separate layout from content.
There's no reason to use tables any more.
Everything can be done with CSS.
Tables are so 2002ish ...
Do you agree with that?
I don't.
I've run into many situations where I just couldn't achieve the
desired effect in different browsers without using tables.

Sometimes the only way is to use a table. Sometimes. Only sometimes and only
for a very small part of a page.

One of those times is, of course, if one is offering up tabular data, which
point you seem to have missed.
Tabular data cannot be displayed with CSS?
Of course it can, and the default styles for <table>, <tr>, <tdetc.
will usually give you a good layout for your tabular data.

You can also use CSS to do tabular layouts of non-tabular data.

You can separate layout from content to your heart's content, and layout
your elements with display: table, display: table-row, display:
table-cell, etc., if you require table-layout behaviour, whether the
content is tabular or not.

It just isn't supported in the current version of IE. That's a
completely different issue though.
Nov 3 '07 #20
On Nov 3, 10:49 pm, Bergamot <berga...@visi.comwrote:
1001 Webs wrote:
On Nov 3, 5:37 pm, Bergamot <berga...@visi.comwrote:
1001 Webs wrote:
There's no reason to use tables any more.
This is a boring subject that is only brought up by clueless, lazy
people that haven't bothered reading the newsgroup archives.
All depends on what newsgroup archives you bother to read, you know?

Hmmm... that just tells me you did little or no research on your own.
But it could be that I'm not well versed on the intricacies of CSS ...
indeed
And I presume you certainly are?

That isn't relevant, but based on what I've seen of your work, then I'm
a lot farther along than you. But instead of doing some learning on your
own to improve your own understanding, you decide to waste people's time
with the tired 'tables vs css' drivel.
The poster just above you would surely disagree about the absoluteness
of that statement.
Which speaks a lot of both your ability to screen Newsgroups and to
understand the needs of today's web authoring.
I have done some learning on my own and what I learned is that is not
a unified criteria on this issue because of different browsers display
pages in different manners.
And I learned too that it does NOT happen when using tables.
In that sense I am long way before you.
Look around just a little and you'll find out for yourself. It's worth
the effort, believe me.

P.D.
Where the heck did my answer to:
"I disagree with anyone who agrees with any absolute statement. "
replied with:
"then you'll disagree with absolute positioning"
go?

Nov 3 '07 #21
Chaddy2222 <sp***********************@yahoo.com.auwrote in message:
11**********************@z24g2000prh.googlegroups. com,
mic...@gmail.com wrote:
>On Nov 3, 3:35 pm, 1001 Webs <1001w...@gmail.comwrote:
>>Every respected Web-authoring Guru says that.
This is the era of table-less design, CSS code, XHTML compliant
websites.
Separate layout from content.

There's no reason to use tables any more.
Everything can be done with CSS.
Tables are so 2002ish ...

Do you agree with that?
I don't.
I've run into many situations where I just couldn't achieve the
desired effect in different browsers without using tables.
But it could be that I'm not well versed on the intricacies of CSS
...

Tables are the easiest
If you need something simple use tables
That's not true. CSS is simple and more powerfull then layout tables.
Simple for you, maybe. I find CSS incomprehensible for anything beyond
specifying fonts and backgrounds, like trying to position boxes within
an overall layout.

And honestly, I don't want to learn, because as far as I'm concerned
tables work fine. Granted, improving the text to mark-up ratio on my
sites would probably help their search engine ranking slightly, but I'd
rather send my time figuring out new ways to make money.

--
Red
Nov 3 '07 #22
Gazing into my crystal ball I observed "Jonathan N. Little"
<lw*****@centralva.netwriting in news:7b1b4$472c9f47$40cba7c4$21950
@NAXS.COM:
mi****@gmail.com wrote:
>On Nov 3, 3:35 pm, 1001 Webs <1001w...@gmail.comwrote:
>>Every respected Web-authoring Guru says that.
This is the era of table-less design, CSS code, XHTML compliant
websites.
Separate layout from content.

There's no reason to use tables any more.
Everything can be done with CSS.
Tables are so 2002ish ...

Do you agree with that?
I don't.
I've run into many situations where I just couldn't achieve the
desired effect in different browsers without using tables.
But it could be that I'm not well versed on the intricacies of CSS
....
>>
Tables are the easiest
If you need something simple use tables

See if you feel that way after editing a site with a half dozen nested
tables with row and column spans...
Yes, without going into the HTML, and having the server write a lot of
javascript href="javascript('somethingbad')"

I inherited that nightmare a few years ago, all gone now.

--
Adrienne Boswell at Home
Arbpen Web Site Design Services
http://www.cavalcade-of-coding.info
Please respond to the group so others can share

Nov 3 '07 #23
Travis Newbury wrote:
On Nov 3, 2:09 pm, Jerry Stuckle <jstuck...@attglobal.netwrote:
>It's not a nightmare if you understand it.
True, but CSS != fluid design
That's not the point. CSS CAN be fluid design. Tables cannot really be
fluid.
>And if you want something to
look *exactly* like you design it, create a PDF.

That is not true at all. While it may not look exactly the same on
100% of the visitors, you can design it to look the same on the
overwhelming majority of visitors. If it were not this way the
corporate world would be rushing to use fluid design. But they
aren't, they are using fixed width. Because that is what people want,
and that is what best suits the corporate world.
Read what I said. Then respond with some intelligence.

If it doesn't look "exactly the same on 100% of the visitors", it isn't
exactly the same, is it?

>I'd prefer to have
fluid designs which adjust to the size of the user's window.

And the key to your statement is "I'd prefer...."
Not at all. Any *competent* webmaster would be able to do such.
I prefer fixed width. So why is what I prefer wrong, and what you
prefer right?
So do most graphic designers I know. And that's fine for a piece of
paper. But it's shows complete incompetence on the web, which is a
fluid layout.
It isn't. It is a preference. Neither of us is right or wrong.

It is a lack of competence on your part.

--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.
js*******@attglobal.net
==================

Nov 4 '07 #24
1001 Webs wrote:
P.D.
Where the heck did my answer to:
"I disagree with anyone who agrees with any absolute statement. "
replied with:
"then you'll disagree with absolute positioning"
go?
Just further down the tread. The shortcomings of *not* using a real
newsreader.

--
Take care,

Jonathan
-------------------
LITTLE WORKS STUDIO
http://www.LittleWorksStudio.com
Nov 4 '07 #25
In article <nI******************************@comcast.com>,
Jerry Stuckle <js*******@attglobal.netwrote:
Tables cannot really be
fluid.
You have said this twice now but have not indicated what you
mean. A table of tabular data can be very fluid or it can be not
very fluid (because of poor design and the use of fixed widths
etc). So what does it mean to say "cannot be really fluid"?

--
dorayme
Nov 4 '07 #26
dorayme wrote:
In article <nI******************************@comcast.com>,
Jerry Stuckle <js*******@attglobal.netwrote:
>Tables cannot really be
fluid.

You have said this twice now but have not indicated what you
mean. A table of tabular data can be very fluid or it can be not
very fluid (because of poor design and the use of fixed widths
etc). So what does it mean to say "cannot be really fluid"?
Let's see you wrap data in a table around a picture, for instance.

--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.
js*******@attglobal.net
==================

Nov 4 '07 #27
On 11/03/07 06:35 am, 1001 Webs wrote:
Every respected Web-authoring Guru says that.
This is the era of table-less design, CSS code, XHTML compliant
websites.
Separate layout from content.

Do you agree with that?
I don't.
Troll.

--
jmm (hyphen) list (at) sohnen-moe (dot) com
(Remove .AXSPAMGN for email)
Nov 4 '07 #28

Haines Brown wrote:
Chaddy2222 <sp***********************@yahoo.com.auwrites:
Tables are the easiest
If you need something simple use tables
That's not true. CSS is simple and more powerfull then layout tables.
As an example check out this template I made.
http://freewebdesign.awardspace.biz/temp/template.html

While I agree with you that CSS adequately provides for layout, your
example not impressive.

On my browsers (galeon, iceweasel), there were anamolies. The left
panel is shifted down about 0.5em from the right panel. That is, there
is a yellow space between it and the "header", which the right panel
lacks. As a result, not only is there a perhaps undesired yellow space
below the left panel and the footer that is wider than that below the
right panel.
That's due to the different colour on the body showing through.
Apparently it is the result of using the KompoZer utility, and it does
not speak much for it. The stylesheet looks confused (the navbar div
seems to be within the header div). As a template, should not the
margins be omitted, or at least set ot defaults?
It was a template I developed for my own sites.
http://freewebdesign.awardspace.biz now is useing it.
It should look a lot better as I changed a lot of things in the CSS.
--
Regards Chad.

Nov 4 '07 #29
1001 Webs wrote:
On Nov 3, 3:49 pm, Harlan Messinger
<hmessinger.removet...@comcast.netwrote:
>1001 Webs wrote:
>>Every respected Web-authoring Guru says that.
Really?
>>This is the era of table-less design, CSS code, XHTML compliant
websites.
Separate layout from content.
And guess what the content is marked up with? (Hint: HTML.) So either
you or whoever's prognostications you're reading is confused.
W3 recommends the use of CSS
You are misunderstanding this. W3 recommends the use of CSS for
*presentation*. Without content marked up with HTML *to apply the CSS
to*, there is no web page.
Nov 4 '07 #30
On Nov 4, 9:14 am, Harlan Messinger
<hmessinger.removet...@comcast.netwrote:
1001 Webs wrote:
On Nov 3, 3:49 pm, Harlan Messinger
<hmessinger.removet...@comcast.netwrote:
1001 Webs wrote:
Every respected Web-authoring Guru says that.
Really?
>This is the era of table-less design, CSS code, XHTML compliant
websites.
Separate layout from content.
And guess what the content is marked up with? (Hint: HTML.) So either
you or whoever's prognostications you're reading is confused.
W3 recommends the use of CSS

You are misunderstanding this. W3 recommends the use of CSS for
*presentation*. Without content marked up with HTML *to apply the CSS
to*, there is no web page.
W3 recommends the use of CSS for *presentation*
and XHTML for content,
Please, correct me if i'm wrong.
Nov 4 '07 #31
In our last episode, <11*********************@d55g2000hsg.googlegroups. com>,
the lovely and talented 1001 Webs broadcast on
comp.infosystems.www.authoring.html:
W3 recommends the use of CSS for *presentation*
and XHTML for content,
Please, correct me if i'm wrong.
You're wrong. That XHTML is more recent does not mean that it is more
highly recommended than HTML 4.01.

It is true enough that it looks like everything is heading toward XML, but
it is pretty much possible to start marking things up with an eye to that
end in HTML, and much more important to move to strict.

--
Lars Eighner <http://larseighner.com/ <http://myspace.com/larseighner>
Countdown: 443 days to go.
What do you do when you're debranded?
Nov 4 '07 #32
Lars Eighner wrote:
In our last episode, <11*********************@d55g2000hsg.googlegroups. com>,
the lovely and talented 1001 Webs broadcast on
comp.infosystems.www.authoring.html:
>W3 recommends the use of CSS for *presentation*
and XHTML for content,
Please, correct me if i'm wrong.

You're wrong. That XHTML is more recent does not mean that it is more
highly recommended than HTML 4.01.
Agree, also I would add XHTML looked like a the recommended path but
Microsoft "dropped anchor" on that course.

--
Take care,

Jonathan
-------------------
LITTLE WORKS STUDIO
http://www.LittleWorksStudio.com
Nov 4 '07 #33
Jim Moe wrote:
On 11/03/07 06:35 am, 1001 Webs wrote:
>Every respected Web-authoring Guru says that.
This is the era of table-less design, CSS code, XHTML compliant
websites.
Separate layout from content.

Do you agree with that?
I don't.
Troll.
Don't see the bridge but sure smells of one.

--
Take care,

Jonathan
-------------------
LITTLE WORKS STUDIO
http://www.LittleWorksStudio.com
Nov 4 '07 #34
1001 Webs wrote:
* XHTML served as XML should be served as application/xhtml+xml.
And if you do, MSIE users will see a download box and not your page.
--
Take care,

Jonathan
-------------------
LITTLE WORKS STUDIO
http://www.LittleWorksStudio.com
Nov 4 '07 #35
On Nov 4, 12:33 am, Adrienne Boswell <arb...@yahoo.comwrote:
Gazing into my crystal ball I observed "Jonathan N. Little"
<lws4...@centralva.netwriting in news:7b1b4$472c9f47$40cba7c4$21950
@NAXS.COM:


mic...@gmail.com wrote:
On Nov 3, 3:35 pm, 1001 Webs <1001w...@gmail.comwrote:
Every respected Web-authoring Guru says that.
This is the era of table-less design, CSS code, XHTML compliant
websites.
Separate layout from content.
>There's no reason to use tables any more.
Everything can be done with CSS.
Tables are so 2002ish ...
>Do you agree with that?
I don't.
I've run into many situations where I just couldn't achieve the
desired effect in different browsers without using tables.
But it could be that I'm not well versed on the intricacies of CSS
...
Tables are the easiest
If you need something simple use tables
See if you feel that way after editing a site with a half dozen nested
tables with row and column spans...

Yes, without going into the HTML, and having the server write a lot of
javascript href="javascript('somethingbad')"

I inherited that nightmare a few years ago, all gone now.

--
Adrienne Boswell at Home
Arbpen Web Site Design Serviceshttp://www.cavalcade-of-coding.info
Please respond to the group so others can share- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -
Is CSS faster than tables?

Nov 4 '07 #36
mi****@gmail.com wrote:
On Nov 4, 12:33 am, Adrienne Boswell <arb...@yahoo.comwrote:
>Gazing into my crystal ball I observed "Jonathan N. Little"
<lws4...@centralva.netwriting in news:7b1b4$472c9f47$40cba7c4$21950
@NAXS.COM:


>>mic...@gmail.com wrote:
On Nov 3, 3:35 pm, 1001 Webs <1001w...@gmail.comwrote:
Every respected Web-authoring Guru says that.
This is the era of table-less design, CSS code, XHTML compliant
websites.
Separate layout from content.
There's no reason to use tables any more.
Everything can be done with CSS.
Tables are so 2002ish ...
Do you agree with that?
I don't.
I've run into many situations where I just couldn't achieve the
desired effect in different browsers without using tables.
But it could be that I'm not well versed on the intricacies of CSS
...
>>>Tables are the easiest
If you need something simple use tables
See if you feel that way after editing a site with a half dozen nested
tables with row and column spans...
Yes, without going into the HTML, and having the server write a lot of
javascript href="javascript('somethingbad')"

I inherited that nightmare a few years ago, all gone now.

--
Adrienne Boswell at Home
Arbpen Web Site Design Serviceshttp://www.cavalcade-of-coding.info
Please respond to the group so others can share- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Is CSS faster than tables?

Define "faster".

Download? Depends on the page. Maybe yes, maybe no.

Rendering? Depends on the page structure and browser being used. Maybe
yes, maybe no.

But if you've got problems with the time it takes to display your page,
CSS alone probably is neither the cause nor the solution.

--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.
js*******@attglobal.net
==================

Nov 4 '07 #37
Chaddy2222 wrote:
: It was a template I developed for my own sites.
: http://freewebdesign.awardspace.biz now is useing it.
: It should look a lot better as I changed a lot of things in the CSS.

I hope you can take constructive criticism...

The flash thingy for your portfolio is annoying. Why does the text have to
flip, roll, spin, or bounce oddly into place?
Heidi

--
Photography Scavenger Hunt
http://www.photographyscavengerhunt.com/

Nov 4 '07 #38
1001 Webs wrote:
On Nov 4, 9:14 am, Harlan Messinger
<hmessinger.removet...@comcast.netwrote:
>1001 Webs wrote:
>>On Nov 3, 3:49 pm, Harlan Messinger
<hmessinger.removet...@comcast.netwrote:
1001 Webs wrote:
Every respected Web-authoring Guru says that.
Really?
This is the era of table-less design, CSS code, XHTML compliant
websites.
Separate layout from content.
And guess what the content is marked up with? (Hint: HTML.) So either
you or whoever's prognostications you're reading is confused.
W3 recommends the use of CSS
You are misunderstanding this. W3 recommends the use of CSS for
*presentation*. Without content marked up with HTML *to apply the CSS
to*, there is no web page.
W3 recommends the use of CSS for *presentation*
and XHTML for content,
Please, correct me if i'm wrong.
I missed that you had mentioned XHTML, but no matter: XHTML is a variety
of HTML, pure and simple, just as HTML 3.2 and HTML 4.01 are varieties
of HTML. XHTML is just an XML-compliant variety. In any event, it has
nothing to do with whether or not you use tableless design or otherwise
separate presentation from content, since you can (mis)use XHTML for
presentation just as easily as you can (mis)use HTML 4.01 for
presentation. So you're confusing several issues here and, ultimately, I
now can't figure out what your point was!
Nov 4 '07 #39
1001 Webs schreef:

[snipped]
That's the final conclusion.
And with this happy note
we say goodbye to all our listeners.

We'll be back!

--
Rob

Nov 4 '07 #40
mi****@gmail.com wrote:
>
Is CSS faster than tables?
That is hard to say. Depends on what you do. If you use a table for
layout have have to add all kinds of nesting, rowspans, colspans, and
html attributes for the table cells, you can certainly bloat your markup
over CSS. One thing for certain if you have to edit the beast it will
take you longer than with proper markup and CSS. With the typical
table-layout a complete rewrite is often easier and faster...

--
Take care,

Jonathan
-------------------
LITTLE WORKS STUDIO
http://www.LittleWorksStudio.com
Nov 4 '07 #41
On 11/04/07 05:44 am, Jonathan N. Little wrote:
>>Every respected Web-authoring Guru says that.
This is the era of table-less design, CSS code, XHTML compliant
websites.
Separate layout from content.

Do you agree with that?
I don't.
Troll.

Don't see the bridge but sure smells of one.
Yes. The arguments from incompetence are a classic sign. "I don't
understand this other stuff, therefore what I do know is the one true way."

--
jmm (hyphen) list (at) sohnen-moe (dot) com
(Remove .AXSPAMGN for email)
Nov 4 '07 #42
Jim Moe wrote:
On 11/04/07 05:44 am, Jonathan N. Little wrote:
>>>Every respected Web-authoring Guru says that.
This is the era of table-less design, CSS code, XHTML compliant
websites.
Separate layout from content.

Do you agree with that?
I don't.

Troll.
Don't see the bridge but sure smells of one.
Yes. The arguments from incompetence are a classic sign. "I don't
understand this other stuff, therefore what I do know is the one true way."
There is a certain security it hat type of thinking, "Inquiring minds
are not to be found"

--
Take care,

Jonathan
-------------------
LITTLE WORKS STUDIO
http://www.LittleWorksStudio.com
Nov 4 '07 #43
1001 Webs <10******@gmail.comwrites:
And finally, I declare this thread officially closed.
You declare that, do you? Who died and made you King of Usenet?

sherm--

--
Web Hosting by West Virginians, for West Virginians: http://wv-www.net
Cocoa programming in Perl: http://camelbones.sourceforge.net
Nov 4 '07 #44
Lars Eighner <us****@larseighner.comwrites:
In our last episode, <11*********************@d55g2000hsg.googlegroups. com>,
the lovely and talented 1001 Webs broadcast on
comp.infosystems.www.authoring.html:
>W3 recommends the use of CSS for *presentation*
and XHTML for content,
Please, correct me if i'm wrong.

You're wrong. That XHTML is more recent does not mean that it is more
highly recommended than HTML 4.01.
Nor does it mean that HTML development has stopped. The W3C has openly stated
that inadequate browser support makes widespread adoption of XHTML problematic,
and revived the HTML Working Group back in March 2007.

<http://www.w3.org/html/wg/>

The goals of XHTML were worthwhile, and maybe if MS had cooperated with proper
support for it in IE, the results would have been different.

As it stands though, with IE's only "support" for XHTML being the fact that its
HTML parser can handle the extra slashes without choking too badly, XHTML has to
be regarded as an experiment that hasn't yet proven successful.

sherm--

--
Web Hosting by West Virginians, for West Virginians: http://wv-www.net
Cocoa programming in Perl: http://camelbones.sourceforge.net
Nov 4 '07 #45
In article <4u******************************@comcast.com>,
Jerry Stuckle <js*******@attglobal.netwrote:
dorayme wrote:
In article <nI******************************@comcast.com>,
Jerry Stuckle <js*******@attglobal.netwrote:
Tables cannot really be
fluid.
You have said this twice now but have not indicated what you
mean. A table of tabular data can be very fluid or it can be not
very fluid (because of poor design and the use of fixed widths
etc). So what does it mean to say "cannot be really fluid"?

Let's see you wrap data in a table around a picture, for instance.
Data? Around a picture? In a table? What will it prove to show
text flowing around a pic in a table cell? If I can show you a
table with a cell that has a pic in it with text flowing around
it, will you then give up saying that "tables cannot really be
fluid"? Are you just going to use the word "really" as a licence
never to revise your statement and just keep hinting at its truth
instead of enlarging on it so that what *you* mean is clearer?

Just for the record, I do not think it is a good idea in general
these days to be using tables for making new pages (using them
for tabular data is another matter of course).

--
dorayme
Nov 4 '07 #46
1001 Webs wrote:
On Nov 3, 10:49 pm, Bergamot <berga...@visi.comwrote:
>>
instead of doing some learning on your
own to improve your own understanding, you decide to waste people's time
with the tired 'tables vs css' drivel.

The poster just above you would surely disagree
See http://improve-usenet.org/
Which speaks a lot of both your ability to screen Newsgroups and to
understand the needs of today's web authoring.
LOL. That is indeed funny. The "today's web authoring" you seem to be
talking about is many years old. Where have you been all this time?
In that sense I am long way before you.
You presume much, I think.
Look around just a little and you'll find out for yourself. It's worth
the effort, believe me.
What makes you think I'm as green as you are? Believe me, I'm not.

--
Berg
Nov 5 '07 #47
dorayme wrote:
In article <4u******************************@comcast.com>,
Jerry Stuckle <js*******@attglobal.netwrote:
>dorayme wrote:
>>In article <nI******************************@comcast.com>,
Jerry Stuckle <js*******@attglobal.netwrote:

Tables cannot really be
fluid.
You have said this twice now but have not indicated what you
mean. A table of tabular data can be very fluid or it can be not
very fluid (because of poor design and the use of fixed widths
etc). So what does it mean to say "cannot be really fluid"?
Let's see you wrap data in a table around a picture, for instance.

Data? Around a picture? In a table? What will it prove to show
text flowing around a pic in a table cell? If I can show you a
table with a cell that has a pic in it with text flowing around
it, will you then give up saying that "tables cannot really be
fluid"? Are you just going to use the word "really" as a licence
never to revise your statement and just keep hinting at its truth
instead of enlarging on it so that what *you* mean is clearer?

Just for the record, I do not think it is a good idea in general
these days to be using tables for making new pages (using them
for tabular data is another matter of course).
Just for the record - you asked for an example. I gave you one. There
are dozens more.

--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.
js*******@attglobal.net
==================

Nov 5 '07 #48
In article <hf******************************@comcast.com>,
Jerry Stuckle <js*******@attglobal.netwrote:
dorayme wrote:
In article <4u******************************@comcast.com>,
Jerry Stuckle <js*******@attglobal.netwrote:
dorayme wrote:
In article <nI******************************@comcast.com>,
Jerry Stuckle <js*******@attglobal.netwrote:

Tables cannot really be
fluid.
You have said this twice now but have not indicated what you
mean. A table of tabular data can be very fluid or it can be not
very fluid (because of poor design and the use of fixed widths
etc). So what does it mean to say "cannot be really fluid"?

Let's see you wrap data in a table around a picture, for instance.
Data? Around a picture? In a table? What will it prove to show
text flowing around a pic in a table cell? If I can show you a
table with a cell that has a pic in it with text flowing around
it, will you then give up saying that "tables cannot really be
fluid"? Are you just going to use the word "really" as a licence
never to revise your statement and just keep hinting at its truth
instead of enlarging on it so that what *you* mean is clearer?

Just for the record, I do not think it is a good idea in general
these days to be using tables for making new pages (using them
for tabular data is another matter of course).

Just for the record - you asked for an example. I gave you one. There
are dozens more.
First, I did not ask 'for an example'. Second, where is the
example you claim to have given? And what exactly is it an
example of? And you have not answered the question I asked you
about what it would prove if *I* gave *you* a table with a cell
that had a picture with text wrapped around.

Look, I am not interested if you are merely saying something that
is somehow supposed to be a placeholder for all the pros of
semantic markup and good css styling. Even if you could rub a few
words together and do this, you would be preaching to the
converted. You made a claim that tables cannot be "really fluid"
and I was merely asking what *you* meant by this. I can think of
a few meanings, some of which support your claim and some not.

--
dorayme
Nov 5 '07 #49
dorayme wrote:
In article <hf******************************@comcast.com>,
Jerry Stuckle <js*******@attglobal.netwrote:
>dorayme wrote:
>>In article <4u******************************@comcast.com>,
Jerry Stuckle <js*******@attglobal.netwrote:

dorayme wrote:
In article <nI******************************@comcast.com>,
Jerry Stuckle <js*******@attglobal.netwrote:
>
>Tables cannot really be
>fluid.
You have said this twice now but have not indicated what you
mean. A table of tabular data can be very fluid or it can be not
very fluid (because of poor design and the use of fixed widths
etc). So what does it mean to say "cannot be really fluid"?
>
Let's see you wrap data in a table around a picture, for instance.
Data? Around a picture? In a table? What will it prove to show
text flowing around a pic in a table cell? If I can show you a
table with a cell that has a pic in it with text flowing around
it, will you then give up saying that "tables cannot really be
fluid"? Are you just going to use the word "really" as a licence
never to revise your statement and just keep hinting at its truth
instead of enlarging on it so that what *you* mean is clearer?

Just for the record, I do not think it is a good idea in general
these days to be using tables for making new pages (using them
for tabular data is another matter of course).
Just for the record - you asked for an example. I gave you one. There
are dozens more.

First, I did not ask 'for an example'. Second, where is the
example you claim to have given? And what exactly is it an
example of? And you have not answered the question I asked you
about what it would prove if *I* gave *you* a table with a cell
that had a picture with text wrapped around.

Look, I am not interested if you are merely saying something that
is somehow supposed to be a placeholder for all the pros of
semantic markup and good css styling. Even if you could rub a few
words together and do this, you would be preaching to the
converted. You made a claim that tables cannot be "really fluid"
and I was merely asking what *you* meant by this. I can think of
a few meanings, some of which support your claim and some not.
You wanted to know what I mean when I say a table can't be fluid. I
gave you an example.

Let's see you wrap text around am image using tables and NO CSS. The
page must adjust to any reasonably sized window and text size (i.e. not
72 point font as the default, and not a 20x20 px window), flowing as
necessary to fill the window and continue to wrap around the picture.

Such is simple in CSS.

--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.
js*******@attglobal.net
==================

Nov 5 '07 #50

This discussion thread is closed

Replies have been disabled for this discussion.

Similar topics

3 posts views Thread by Phong Ho | last post: by
27 posts views Thread by Michael C | last post: by
59 posts views Thread by Lennart Björk | last post: by
40 posts views Thread by VK | last post: by
reply views Thread by NPC403 | last post: by
By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.