|
|
Posted by fred.haab@gmail.com on 10/01/07 13:45
On Oct 1, 6:01 am, Jim S <j...@jimXscott.co.uk> wrote:
> Almost all the many pages on my website look something like thishttp://www.jimscot.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Jims_pictures/Jimspics_14_wav...
> Is there any advantage to doing away with the 'table' as a placeholder?
The rants against tables are way overblown, IMO. Yes, I avoid tables,
and there's a lot of practical "theory" about why you shouldn't use
them for layout, and they all make great points. There are, however,
cases where even the most creative use of "div" and css doesn't work,
especially on all browsers. So then they think hacks to make IE look
right are better than tables. I don't.
One of the horrible things about browser capability/compatibility is
that vertical centering often simply doesn't work at all. In fact,
even horizontal centering has a lot catches depending on how you do
it. I was accused, when last I argued about this, of using
"pathological" cases to show why DIV doesn't always work when, in
fact, it was for a specific project I was working on. Especially
with "dynamic" content (like on your pages - you want to use the same
page structure, but some of your images might be wider or landscape as
opposed to portrait, so you can't just use some of the CSS hacks and
always have it centered). I was actually told I should be using
scripting to dynamicall modify the CSS in that case. Uh.... no, not
when I can do it with a simple table.
My opinion is that a very SIMPLE table for layout (not the nested
table within nested table nightmares) is not such a horrible thing.
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|