4 ms·
HN being HN I have to say that's this is how I like to read presentations on the Internet. Not on slideshare, not with a js library that add worthless transitio
by tangue 10y ago
HN being HN I have to say that's this is how I like to read presentations on the Internet. Not on slideshare, not with a js library that add worthless transitions between slides but in a simple, readable text on one page.
- idlewords 10y agoHTML table tags, baby! Thank you!
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]
- lisper 10y agohttp://www.flownet.com/ron/css-rant.html http://www.flownet.com/ron/css-rant.html
- johnfjacobi 10y agoI've never read this before, but it offers a unique perspective that might have convinced me to be less damning of tables in place of CSS.
- tomjakubowski 10y agoWell hey, you could always get the best of both worlds and use "display: table" and friends. :)
- Drdrdrq 10y agoI never understood the point of this... If you want something to look like a table, why not just use a table? With html only content and design really matter...
- tomjakubowski 10y agoUser agents aren't necessarily graphical web browsers. Marking up a document fragment as a <table> when it isn't tabular data makes it harder for screen readers, terminal web browsers, and crawlers to do their job well.
- tomjakubowski 10y agoWell hey, you could always get the best of both worlds and use "display: table" and friends. :)
- TeMPOraL 10y agoPersonally I went full circle on the issue. I did table layouts when I was a kid, then I learned the "right way" and fought great battles to make CSS behave. Then, after I did a bit of that stuff and saw others doing it, it dawned upon me that the whole "separating layout from content" is just a religious dogma, and like the best religious dogmas, those loudest about it are least likely to actually try and follow it. We've replaced clean tables with an ungodly mess of divs, which are placed in our HTML for the sole reason to provide CSS hooks - there's no semantic reason for them. This is not separating presentation from content, this is shitting presentation at content through a high-speed fan! So nowadays, I look more favorably at tables again.
- dkersten 10y agoFlexbox solves many of my css layout woes, but is still not as convenient as it could be (and is still "container" based as the article puts it). I wish I could use something like QML for layout (anchors that connect elements to each other, grids for when you need lists/tables/columns/grids).
- EvilTerran 10y agoWhile that made good points back when it was written (2009), nowadays we have flexbox - which solves the problems that essay describes with such precision it makes you wonder if the spec authors were responding to it in particular. I mean, if you take, say, MDN's tutorial page on flexbox, it demonstrates the exact same layout that used to be such a problem: https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/CSS/CSS_Flexible_Box_Layout/Using_CSS_flexible_boxes#Holy_Grail_Layout_example https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/CSS/CSS_Flexibl... So perhaps the story is, more precisely, "when it comes to layout, abusing floats is fundamentally flawed" - yes, in the past, tables may have been the best alternative in a lot of cases; but now we've got it, flexbox is superior to floats and to tables. It really is a joy to work with once you get your head round it IMO.
- MarkMc 10y agoI'm all for simple and readable, but this article's layout was frustrating. On My phone the left side had images while the right side had text in small font. I could zoom into the text to compensate, but then completely forgot about the images unless they were mentioned in the text.