Posted by Jerry Stuckle on 11/05/07 03:57

dorayme wrote:
> In article <8bGdnRMn5MqA8bPanZ2dnUVZ_jmdnZ2d@comcast.com>,
> Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> wrote:
>
>> You wanted to know what I mean when I say a table can't be fluid. I
>> gave you an example.
>
> Look, it seems that we are on different wavelengths here. In my
> understanding, an example of something that cannot exist cannot
> be given. So why don't you be a little more precise in your words
> and thoughts. It does no good endlessly repeating your same very
> few words.
>

No, I gave you an example of a fluid design which can be easily
accomplished in CSS, but not with tables.

> I have in mind that you may have some misconceptions, that you
> are rolling a whole lot of concepts into the idea of fluid and it
> is you who should be sorting all this out, considering it is you
> who is making the big claim. Table based layout can easily be
> user friendly in respect to using the size of the screen. A
> simple example is a 100% wide table that has 2 columns, one that
> is enough to hold a navigation list, the other for all the
> content. That is a table layout. It is plenty fluid in many
> senses of the word. Naturally, if you are meaning that a table
> layout cannot involve css or em based or % dimensioning and has
> to involve tables within tables and whatever then you are putting
> up a straw man. That discussion is long dead.
>

No, I'm not. Fluid design is much more than setting a table to 100%
width of the window. That concept is from the 90's.

Nowadays fluid layouts can adjust to text size, window size. Content
isn't limited to just the two columns you mention - in fact, content can
wrap around the navigation area. Images in the window can have text
wrapped around them. And a whole bunch more that goes into a true fluid
design.

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

[Back to original message]