Posted by 1001 Webs on 11/03/07 22:29

On Nov 3, 10:49 pm, Bergamot <berga...@visi.com> wrote:
> 1001 Webs wrote:
> > On Nov 3, 5:37 pm, Bergamot <berga...@visi.com> wrote:
> >> 1001 Webs wrote:
>
> >> > There's no reason to use tables any more.
>
> >> This is a boring subject that is only brought up by clueless, lazy
> >> people that haven't bothered reading the newsgroup archives.
> > All depends on what newsgroup archives you bother to read, you know?
>
> Hmmm... that just tells me you did little or no research on your own.
>
> >> > But it could be that I'm not well versed on the intricacies of CSS ...
>
> >> indeed
> > And I presume you certainly are?
>
> That isn't relevant, but based on what I've seen of your work, then I'm
> a lot farther along than you. But instead of doing some learning on your
> own to improve your own understanding, you decide to waste people's time
> with the tired 'tables vs css' drivel.

The poster just above you would surely disagree about the absoluteness
of that statement.
Which speaks a lot of both your ability to screen Newsgroups and to
understand the needs of today's web authoring.
I have done some learning on my own and what I learned is that is not
a unified criteria on this issue because of different browsers display
pages in different manners.
And I learned too that it does NOT happen when using tables.
In that sense I am long way before you.
Look around just a little and you'll find out for yourself. It's worth
the effort, believe me.

P.D.
Where the heck did my answer to:
"I disagree with anyone who agrees with any absolute statement. "
replied with:
"then you'll disagree with absolute positioning"
go?

[Back to original message]