Posted by richard on 09/22/06 04:22

"dorayme" <doraymeRidThis@optusnet.com.au> wrote in message
news:doraymeRidThis-4DF3C3.11364622092006@news-vip.optusnet.com.au...
> In article <APFQg.17388$E02.6875@newsb.telia.net>,
> "Luigi Donatello Asero" <jaggillarfotboll@telia.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> An image is usually larger in terms of kilobytes and a table should not
>> be
>> used for layout purposes...
>> Anyway, I find quite surprising that you do not like CSS, because I
>> thought
>> that you used to do it.
>> I also noticed that you started liking the page
>
> First, if something is a bit larger in bandwidth, it may be worth
> it. Second, I am not sure that tables has to do with this issue.
> And third, you make a leap like the mightiest of frogs to
> conclude I do not like CSS. This is not true. And fourth, I do
> not think tables should never be used for layout at all in any
> circumstances.


Here we go with the age old discussion that tables are for tabular data.
Well dear boy, those of us who were around long before CSS, had nothing else
to work with.
While I do agree to an extent that tables are a poor excuse for content, if
that is how one wishes to work, then that is one's opinion and choice.
Now the new question is, should flash replace CSS?
Of course, given enough time, another new development will soon come along
and CSS will be obsolete.
Until then, it is a matter of preference.

[Back to original message]