|
|
Posted by Philip on 06/19/06 18:59
In article <1150738123.836994.316880@r2g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
"TC" <gg.20.keen4some@spamgourmet.com> wrote:
> Philip wrote:
>
> > This same topic was discussed over in
> > comp.infosystems.www.authoring.html just last week.
> > The thread is called "tablles vs css". Here's a link:
> >
> > http://groups.google.com/group/comp.infosystems.www.authoring.html/browse_f
> > rm/thread/58f30d17421a21a6/1eca2bfbf251215d?#1eca2bfbf251215d
>
>
> Hi Philip
>
> IMHO, that thread is not convincing.
Hi TC,
What's wrong with a smorgasbord of opinions? =)
> Regarding the specific advantages of a CSS-based layout, over a
> tables-based one, by my count, of the 16 replies (excluding the OP's
> own reply) :
>
> - 8 replies did not cite *any* specific advantages; (#s 2, 5, 6, 11,
> 12, 13, 16, 17 below)
>
> - 3 replies *disagreed* that tables should never be used for layout (7,
> 10, 15), and
>
> - 5 replies cited a total of only 3 specific advantages: power &
> capability; ease of maintenance; and compliance with current/W3C
> standards. (3, 8, 9, 14, 18)
Interesting (and thorough) anaylsis. Some of the no-advantages-cited
posts were more meta-comments than anything, but I get your point.
Again, I think it is healthy to be exposed to a number of different
viewpoints.
> My own site uses tables for page-layout. I do intend to change it to
> use CSS, when I redesign the site to move the content to the middle
> column of the screen.
>
> However, I also use tables in various places within the pages, to
> lay-out certain text and graphics. I'm not convinced that I should go
> to the trouble of changing all those. They are *not* a maintenance
> problem, and I'm not convinced that the CSS alternative would be any
> simpler.
>
> Here's a very simple example: http://102673.atspace.com/tables.htm
> What would be a specific, real-world benefit of changing that table to
> DIV's + CSS instead?
Well, I think the recommendation would be to change it to UL/LIs rather
than just generic DIVs. One advantage of this approach would be that you
could change the list to a numbered list by just changing the UL to an
OL. Also, using TABLE for layout means a lot of table tags on one's
pages. I find it easier to use UL for lists and TABLE for tables; it
makes the HTML and CSS a little more self-explanatory. I realize that
neither of these are strong arguments. I think there's also a problem
with browsers not being able to draw a table until all of the rows are
loaded. If true, that's a solid disadvantage of a table-based approach.
> "It seperates content from presentation" is not - in and of itself - a
> benefit. If it was, then, I could equally well say that "tables should
> *always* be used for layout", because "this keeps content and
> presentation together"!
>
> Any thoughts?
It is easier for automated tools to process content when it is separated
from presentation, hence the value of something like XML+XSLT. For
someone making a Web page about his pet fish Robert or a vacation to
Mexico, the separation of content from presentation is a pretty hard
sell. Me, I am somewhere in between. I make some Web pages that are
about as personal and trivial as one about a pet fish. But I earn my
living by programming, and when I work on a project where multiple
authors (who haven't a clue about HTML) work on the same document and
those documents needs to be rendered from OpenOffice XML to HTML, and
some PHB suddenly decides that they also need to be available in PDF
format doubleplus ASAP, then I'd better be comfortable and familiar with
separating content from presentation. (Apologies for the EUA --
Excessive Use of Acronyms.) I want it to be second nature, and it will
only become that if I practice at it.
Cheers
> [thread analysis follows]
>
> === 2: Chaddy2222 ===
> No advantages cited.
>
>
> === 3: Philip Semanchuk ===
> One specific advantage cited:
> - it's much more capable and sophisticated than a tables-based layout.
>
>
> === 4: OP ===
> (N/A)
>
>
> === 5: Sherm Pendley ===
> No advantages cited.
>
>
> === 6: axlq ===
> No advantages cited.
>
>
> === 7: Sherm Pendley ===
> DISAGREES that tables should never be used for layout:
> "if you intend to introduce divs that are used purely for
> presentational purposes and have no semantic meaning, then I'd say
> there's no point. Misused divs are neither better nor worse than
> misused tables."
>
>
> === 8: Jim Moe ===
> One specific advantage cited:
> "Ultimately the best reason to learning HTML+CSS is maintenance. It
> truly is a lot easier to make even major changes in appearance when a
> site uses HTML+CSS as they are intended.
>
>
> === 9: Jack ===
> Says that "separating content and presentation is a benefit of using
> CSS" - but doesn't say why. Let's be kind, and assume that he said:
> "... which makes it easier to maintain and enhance". One specific
> advantage.
>
>
> === 10: Michael Vilain ===
> DISAGREES that tables should never be used for layout:
> "if I want a set of three gifs next to each other with caption text
> underneath, it's faster and easier (and works on more browsers) to use
> a table"
>
>
> === 11: Richard Gration ===
> No advantages cited.
>
>
> === 12: Matt Silberstein ===
> No advantages cited.
>
>
> === 13: Jim Moe ===
> No advantages cited.
>
>
> === 14: mens libertina ===
> Three specific advantages cited:
> - "it is what most(?) people are doing these days". (weak)
> - "it is *the* accepted standard that is put forth by the W3C, and as
> such, it marks you as a professional."
> - "it makes maintainence easier by focusing your design changes to one
> page (the style sheet) rather than every single page."
>
>
> === 15: Chris F.A. Johnson ===
> DISAGREES that tables should never be used for layout:
> - There are instances where tables are the better way to accomplish
> one's design.
> - The ability of tables to adapt themselves to whatever width is
> required makes them often indispensible.
> - Many CSS hacks make the "umaintainable" tables look like child's
> play. [ie. the table might be *easier* to maintain that a CSS
> equivalent]
>
>
> === 16: Andy Dingley ===
> No advantages cited.
>
>
> === 17: Chris F.A. Johnson ===
> No advantages cited.
>
>
> === 18: mens libertina ===
> One (weak) advantage cited:
> "you should know what is currently popular if you want to be accepted
> as a knowledgeable person"
> [Knowing what is currently popular, is not an argument for *using* it!]
>
>
> (END)
--
Philip
http://NikitaTheSpider.com/
Bulk HTML validation, link checking and more
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|