Posted by Jonathan N. Little on 09/22/06 14:23

richard wrote:
>
> "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.
>

Been there, but for many reason CSS is a much better way. It is like
computer and graphics, sure your can break out the waxer, rubylithe,
mylar, ink and photostats... No one is putting a gun to your head. But
for me, I don't miss it and I have never looked back...

--
Take care,

Jonathan
-------------------
LITTLE WORKS STUDIO
http://www.LittleWorksStudio.com

[Back to original message]