|
|
Posted by John Hosking on 02/11/07 16:41
tuntis wrote:
> Doesn't anybody else think that CSS is way too hard, ESPECIALLY if
> you've been building layouts with tables before? Here, I'll copypaste a
> rant from my blog (tuntis.net):
How about copypasting the *url* to the rant instead of all this
oddly-formatted text?
>
>> Why is CSS (Cascading Style Sheets) so great for layout? Sure, it
>> might “give lower bandwidth usage” and make “sites more compatible”,
>> but what’s the point of all the trouble? A well managed table layout
>> mixed with CSS works just well and takes half the time it would take
>> to make in CSS;
>>
>> 1. CSS for “modern web layout” is a pain to learn; z-index,
>> absolute positioning… all that you can make with a table!
CSS does not equal z-index or absolute positioning. And what's hard to
learn about z-index (except that you don't usually need it to use CSS)?
>> 2. Properly made table layouts don’t suck and are easy to manage.
Properly made CSS layouts don’t suck and are easy to manage - often even
easier than table layouts.
>> 3. However, don’t get me wrong: CSS is a great system; but I
>> believe that it is too complicated for website layout.
In some cases, yes...
>>
>> So, let’s make a quick Google search:
Yeah, that's what I was thinking; we should do a search. Definitely!
(Um, pssst! what are we searching for?)
[some stuff snipped]
>> Many CSS layouts are overcomplicated; admit it, CSS isn’t god.
I admit it. I am ashamed of myself for my idolatry. Pardon me while I
disassemble my shrine (which I have relatively positioned in the corner,
1% of the room's width away from the left wall...)
>>
>> The above site says “3. Tables Were Meant For Data Needing To Be Shown
>> As A Table”.
>>
>> But they have proven to be an effective way of web design.
>>
>> The above site says “4. Tables Limit Your Creativity”.
>>
>> Eh? That is a very incorrect statement!
It's not only incorrect, it's *very* incorrect? Must be pretty bad.
>> CSS limits your creativity
>> unless you have been studying it for ages; if your layout needs
>> something that’s too overcomplicated for tables,
Yes, tables can only handle things that are only *somewhat*
overcomplicated. For things which are *too* overcomplicated, go to CSS
(or as I always like to call it, the oh-so-mighty CSS).
>> use the
>> “oh-so-mighty” CSS. Point being, there’s no point to use CSS for
>> everything, since it’s much harder.
>>
>> “So why would you want to use tables?
Keeps me from spilling my milk while I eat my corn-on-the cob.
>> Take the time to learn
>> CSS/XHTML, and you’ll save time and increase revenue in the long run.”
>>
>> Wrong.
Wrong? Oh. :-(
>>
>> So use tables and CSS when absolutely needed; that’s my solution.
I do! I use tables when tables are absolutely needed. I use CSS when CSS
is absolutely needed. And I use nothing when nothing is absolutely
needed. I guess we agree!
> I'd like to hear some comments to this, so "let's discuss". (I hope this
> gets spread to better news servers anyways, since my ISP's one sucks)
I would comment, but I keep hearing DNFTT. Sorry.
HAND!
--
John
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|