Posted by Jerry Stuckle on 11/03/07 18:09

Secret Agent X wrote:
> Chaddy2222 <spamlovermailbox-sicurity@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
>
>> mic...@gmail.com wrote:
>>> On Nov 3, 3:35 pm, 1001 Webs <1001w...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> Every respected Web-authoring Guru says that.
>>>> This is the era of table-less design, CSS code, XHTML compliant
>>>> websites.
>>>> Separate layout from content.
>>>>
>>>> There's no reason to use tables any more.
>>>> Everything can be done with CSS.
>>>> Tables are so 2002ish ...
>>>>
>>>> Do you agree with that?
>>>> I don't.
>>>> I've run into many situations where I just couldn't achieve the
>>>> desired effect in different browsers without using tables.
>>>> But it could be that I'm not well versed on the intricacies of CSS ...
>>> Tables are the easiest
>>> If you need something simple use tables
>> That's not true. CSS is simple and more powerfull then layout tables.
>
> Rubbish!
>
> Two columns, two rows, resizeable, cross browser compataible:
>
> <table>
> <tr>
> <td> Cell one</td>
> <td> Cell two</td>
> </tr>
> <tr>
> <td> Cell three</td>
> <td> Cell four</td>
> </tr>
> </table>
>
> That's simplicity. It's also felxible.
>

Now let's see you make it fluid.

> CSS layout is a nightmare. Unreliable, not only because it's suggested
> and not required, but also because it varies between browsers and runs
> into problems with resizing.
>
> X
>

It's not a nightmare if you understand it. And if you want something to
look *exactly* like you design it, create a PDF. I'd prefer to have
fluid designs which adjust to the size of the user's window.

--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.
jstucklex@attglobal.net
==================

[Back to original message]