Posted by Ed Mulroy on 06/14/06 16:03

> The real advantage is that if you wanted to change the look of the page
> and the arrangement of your features list ...

Your point is a good one. I like the separation between the content and the
presentation and that "clear" and "easily understood" are now more up to how
I did it than to the HTML requirement to sprinkle commands throughout the
HTML document. Maintenance and alterations are easier when done your way.

You blow things up a bit more than I but you're probably working on a larger
screen. I'm most often on a 1024x768 laptop but try to design for 800x600
as many still use that size (as do I, at least in width, because I run with
multiple, non-maximized windows).

My comprehension of CSS is mostly limited to CSS 1 and in fact have been
using a local copy of that spec,
http://www.w3.org/Style/css1-updates/REC-CSS1-19990111.pdf, as a reference.
Some of what makes your scheme work seems to be CSS 2, a level to which I
have paid too little attention and at times actually avoided mostly because
of fear of the lack of browser support.

I'm about 10 hours drive from my machine with IE 5.1 on it. Do you know
offhand if IE 5.1 supports the type of CSS you used to make that work?

Side note: I looked at your home page - impressive!

.. Ed

> Jonathan N. Little wrote in message
> news:671d8$449019a2$40cba777$21843@NAXS.COM...
>
> The real advantage is that if you wanted to change the look of the page
> and the arrangement of your features list from
>
> 1 2
> 3
> 4 5
>
> to
>
> 1 2 3
> 4 5
>
> or
>
> 1
> 2
> 3
> 4
> 5
>
> or
>
> 1 2 3 4
> 5
>
> or whatever; with a table for layout you might have to *totally* redo the
> markup and that gets especially messy if you nested table and/or spanned
> columns and rows to get the desired layout. With my example most times you
> do not have to touch your markup but just make changes to the stylesheet.
> Or if you do have to change the markup is usually only entails changing
> the class attribute!

[Back to original message]