Posted by dorayme on 09/22/06 05:11

In article <eevoue0178v@news2.newsguy.com>,
"richard" <don@john.son> wrote:

> > 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.

Had not meant to raise any debate on this. Not initiated a table
for any layout purpose for quite a while... On the other hand, I
have not rushed to change long established sites that use some
either. I do when I have time. And it is even longer in time that
I used tables for laying out in anything but the most rudimentary
way, left nav col and right content, maybe a third "features"
col. Big skeleton stuff.


> 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.

Who would make a table the content of their site? Perhaps a
teacher of html tables technology? No, it's ok, no need to
explain - I am typing to distract myself from work.

--
dorayme

[Back to original message]