5 ms·

No problem, you don't need that. Just use tables.

dathinab 6y ago
No just css grid, that's all we ever wanted ;=) (But honestly tables suck bad time, I did wrote some table base hobby website back in 2009? or so and it wasn't nice (the experience, not the website which was quite fine). Sure basing a GUI on a grid is the best thing to do in many cases but tables are no grids. Grids are more flexible.)
- inopinatus 6y ago
  Not sure if you’re joking, because CSS Grid does provide 99% of my layout needs. (or it would if 5% of my users weren’t still using IE11, but that’s another story.)
- koolba 6y ago
  The biggest problem with tables was that they worked.
  - bluejekyll 6y ago
    Except if you need to support different device sizes and dynamic layout.
    - laumars 6y ago
      I’m not defending table based layout but in fairness different device sizes was less of an issue back then because almost all browsing was done on a PC or Mac and thus dynamic layout wasn't even something you needed to considerate.
      - bluejekyll 6y ago
        Well, my point was more that it’s not a great option today. You’re right, back in the day when everyone’s screen sizes were somewhat consistent, it worked, though still had many quirks.
      - chriswarbo 6y ago
        > different device sizes was less of an issue back then because almost all browsing was done on a PC or Mac and thus dynamic layout wasn't even something you needed to considerate. It saddens me when Web sites assume they are in a full-screen window :(
- _underfl0w_ 6y ago
  Impressive that you remembered having two sets of nested parentheses going by the end of your comment and closed them correctly. Perhaps that's part of the problem...
- Aeolun 6y ago
  I’m sure if we still had to use tables someone would have built a React wrapper by now.
zzo38computer 6y ago
Tables should be used for data, not for layout.
- wildrhythms 6y ago
  This is true, <table> elements are for tabular data. But look at almost any web layout, and you will notice things are in a table layout most of the time. Even flexbox conceptualizes the flow of children as flex-direction: row/column. I think tabular concepts like rows and columns just make sense to humans making websites, and our 2D x/y axis conditioning. The real issue with using <table> is semanticism, breaking DOM flow (sometimes creates issues for screen readers), and separation of concerns wrt data and style like you mentioned. Also, <table>s are hard to style over, like wtf is display: table-cell? Nobody seems to know. But the number of times I see a colleague or fellow frontend cretin re-creating a tabular interface with a bunch of <div class="row"> etc... or wondering how to dynamically size the nested columns to fit the largest cell, I remind them: just use a table. Please. You might notice that Hacker News layout uses <table>.
- core-questions 6y ago
  All I can say is whatever, man. The semantic web and all the RDF tuple goodness we were supposed to get is mostly a dead dream. Make whatever works for your users. Accept that things aren't going to be pure and perfect. If tables gets me to where I need to be, then that's what I'll use. Worked 20 years ago, works now, will work 20 years from now too.
goto11 6y ago
I can't imagine any actual web designer wanting to trade flexbox/grid for tables.
- core-questions 6y ago
  What if I told you that there are people who make "web applications" that aren't beautiful or "designer" quality?
  - goto11 6y ago
    Good for them - but a browser which only cater to them is not going to be successful.
Grumbledour 6y ago
I never really understood what people have against float. I think it works fine for most use cases and is not to difficult. Now table layouts where quite a pain because they got very complex very fast. Flexbox and Grid are fine I guess, but I always found them a bit harder to understand than float and did not so much they offered that I needed.

No just css grid, that's all we ever wanted ;=) (But honestly tables suck bad time, I did wrote some table base hobby website back in 2009? or so and it wasn't nice (the experience, not the website which was quite fine). Sure basing a GUI on a grid is the best thing to do in many cases but tables are no grids. Grids are more flexible.)

inopinatus 6y ago
Not sure if you’re joking, because CSS Grid does provide 99% of my layout needs. (or it would if 5% of my users weren’t still using IE11, but that’s another story.)
koolba 6y ago
The biggest problem with tables was that they worked.
- bluejekyll 6y ago
  Except if you need to support different device sizes and dynamic layout.
  - laumars 6y ago
    I’m not defending table based layout but in fairness different device sizes was less of an issue back then because almost all browsing was done on a PC or Mac and thus dynamic layout wasn't even something you needed to considerate.
    - bluejekyll 6y ago
      Well, my point was more that it’s not a great option today. You’re right, back in the day when everyone’s screen sizes were somewhat consistent, it worked, though still had many quirks.
    - chriswarbo 6y ago
      > different device sizes was less of an issue back then because almost all browsing was done on a PC or Mac and thus dynamic layout wasn't even something you needed to considerate. It saddens me when Web sites assume they are in a full-screen window :(
_underfl0w_ 6y ago
Impressive that you remembered having two sets of nested parentheses going by the end of your comment and closed them correctly. Perhaps that's part of the problem...
Aeolun 6y ago
I’m sure if we still had to use tables someone would have built a React wrapper by now.

zzo38computer 6y ago

Tables should be used for data, not for layout.

wildrhythms 6y ago
This is true, <table> elements are for tabular data. But look at almost any web layout, and you will notice things are in a table layout most of the time. Even flexbox conceptualizes the flow of children as flex-direction: row/column. I think tabular concepts like rows and columns just make sense to humans making websites, and our 2D x/y axis conditioning. The real issue with using <table> is semanticism, breaking DOM flow (sometimes creates issues for screen readers), and separation of concerns wrt data and style like you mentioned. Also, <table>s are hard to style over, like wtf is display: table-cell? Nobody seems to know. But the number of times I see a colleague or fellow frontend cretin re-creating a tabular interface with a bunch of <div class="row"> etc... or wondering how to dynamically size the nested columns to fit the largest cell, I remind them: just use a table. Please. You might notice that Hacker News layout uses <table>.
core-questions 6y ago
All I can say is whatever, man. The semantic web and all the RDF tuple goodness we were supposed to get is mostly a dead dream. Make whatever works for your users. Accept that things aren't going to be pure and perfect. If tables gets me to where I need to be, then that's what I'll use. Worked 20 years ago, works now, will work 20 years from now too.

goto11 6y ago

I can't imagine any actual web designer wanting to trade flexbox/grid for tables.

core-questions 6y ago
What if I told you that there are people who make "web applications" that aren't beautiful or "designer" quality?
- goto11 6y ago
  Good for them - but a browser which only cater to them is not going to be successful.

Grumbledour 6y ago

I never really understood what people have against float. I think it works fine for most use cases and is not to difficult. Now table layouts where quite a pain because they got very complex very fast. Flexbox and Grid are fine I guess, but I always found them a bit harder to understand than float and did not so much they offered that I needed.