Posted by Andy Dingley on 02/06/07 14:51

On 6 Feb, 11:59, "mrcakey \(The Eclectic Electric\)"
<nos...@spamispoo.spam> wrote:
> How strongly would you counsel against building a page using CSS position?

I presume that you mean { position: <foo>; } where "foo" is anything
other than the usual initial value of "static".
"CSS positioning" as a broad topic is fine (and I'm in no mood for
another "I can't get CSS to work, therefore <table>s are better"
thread).

position:absolute; ties you into whatever you use as a length
dimension (i.e. pixels / ems) for the top and left values. If you go
for pixels it's inflexible against font size changes, if you go for
ems it's just as inflexible with images. Any absolute positioning is a
quick route to non-robust pages that look terrible on any browser
other than the author's.

The other positioning models are OK, except that they're more
complicated to understand and browser support is generally poor. You
can also do pretty much everything with static; it'll work, and it'll
keep working across all the varied devices you want to display it on.
What's not to like?

There are good reasons to use other positioning models, but they're
far from common. If you have a specific need in mind, tell us what it
is before you're going to get a detailed analysis of it.

[Back to original message]