Chris Morris wrote:
"sinister" <si******@nospam.invalid> writes: From
http://www.oreillynet.com/pub/a/java...ss_layout.html
"Typically CSS layout replaces tables, which are currently the most
popular method of placing page elements. There is a common
misconception that CSS layout techniques are incapable of producing
complex page layouts. While it is true that *tables generally
provide more flexibility*, I will show you that complex layouts are
quite possible with CSS." [emphasis added]
[snip] As to whether more flexibility is good or bad, depends what you mean
by flexibility.
I see at least 3 different meanings of "flexibility" in use:
- The ability to provide a larger *range* of layouts. I don't know how to
count this, and suspect it isn't worth trying. They form different, but
overlapping sets, and hybrid approaches can also be used.
- The ability to *change* the layout more easily. CSS typically wins there,
especially if it uses absolute positioning. But using float as a layout
technique can be as tricky to change as a table, except to swap left and
right.
- The *behaviour* of the page under different viewing conditions. I doubt if
that is what is meant here. But simple layout tables can adapt very well to
different content & viewing conditions without stacking behaviour. They don't
have the flexibility of floating behaviour, but I don't like that at the
page-layout level anyway.
I'm tending to think of use of absolute positioning, and use of floats, as 2
techniques that are as different from one another as either is from tables.
Otherwise, some statements are difficult to understand.
--
Barry Pearson
http://www.Barry.Pearson.name/photography/ http://www.BirdsAndAnimals.info/ http://www.ChildSupportAnalysis.co.uk/