|
|
Posted by ^reaper^ on 10/17/89 11:21
While sipping absinthe, Onideus Mad Hatter heard a loud sucking noise
coming from alt.2600, and hastily inscribed the following unintelligible
Sanskrit in <news:po3gd110illjvlljlohbile5o6f5hc5prk@4ax.com>:
> On Fri, 15 Jul 2005 12:53:48 GMT, Michael Winter
> <m.winter@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
[snip]
>>The problem, as I said in my previous post, is that the positioned
>>container DIV element doesn't have an explicit width. Without being able
>>to see the markup again I can't say exactly why that's so.
>
> ...um, that's why God invented style sheets. DIV in and of itself
> doesn't really do anything without style sheets. Really, there is no
> sane reason why ANYONE should be using tables anymore, that's just
> archaic, sloppy, imprecise web design at its best.
Each have their own uses. I tend to favor divs over tables, simply bc
tables come with inherent limitations. For example, they only work with a
subset of teh css styles. Which equates to less control over cell behavior
(or additional and unnecessary coding acrobatics to mimic divs).
Furthermore, teh cell data does not inherit styles (e.g, if you wish to set
a diff font for each row, you must explicitly set teh font at teh cell
level, rather than teh row level).
And finally, they require a complete load of teh table data before teh
browser will display teh table output v rendering teh data as it is
received. Which xlates to a blank screen while waiting for teh table to be
created by teh browser.
If however, one is looking for a simple grid layout with auto width/heights
among other defaults, table impls are fine. Again, it depends upon teh
target requirements.
--
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." -- George
Santayana
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|