4 ms·

Great points. I always cringe when I read a "CSS is awful!" article that even mentions table-based layout. The mere thought of going back to building (and more

Great points. I always cringe when I read a "CSS is awful!" article that even mentions table-based layout. The mere thought of going back to building (and more importantly, MAINTAINING) sites with nested tables makes me want to become a farmer. The article has valid points - CSS is far from perfect - but can we please collectively admit that tables are not the answer?

dcminter 18y ago
I tried, and evidently failed, to make it clear that I am not in any way advocating a return to table based layout. I'm just frustrated that CSS is so much harder than table based layout to actually implement. When I see similar frustrations expressed elsewhere, they seem to be roundly condemned with comments of the form "no, CSS is EASY" yet any suggested workarounds for specific problems supporting that theory are of diabolic complexity.
- gigawatt 18y ago
  Thanks for clarifying. I just think that a valid case for the shortcomings of CSS can be made without even mentioning tables. And to be honest, now that I really know CSS, it is easier than tables. Tables might be easier when you're dealing with a single page, but any site that has even a slight variation in layouts will be much easier with CSS. It sounds like much of your frustration has to do with browser inconsistency, which isn't necessarily CSS's fault. Getting things to work on Firefox 3 is fairly easy. Getting it to work on you client's Windows 2000 desktop is not.
  - dcminter 18y ago
    "Tables might be easier when you're dealing with a single page, but any site that has even a slight variety in layouts will be much easier with CSS." That's a valid point. Nonetheless I think that it is also valid to consider the ease with which tables can be used to express layout as a metric for what CSS ought to aspire to.
gruseom 18y ago
can we please collectively admit that tables are not the answer? Given that your question is sitting in html like this: p < span < td < tr < tbody < table < td < tr < tbody < table < td < tr < tbody < table < center < body < html ... I'd say the answer has to be no.
- gigawatt 18y ago
  that was definitely a surprising View Source...
- Hexstream 18y ago
  It doesn't say tables are the answer, it says table are an answer. It says nothing about a CSS version of the site.
  - gruseom 18y ago
    I don't follow you. The question was "can we please collectively admit [that css is better than tables]". The answer is no, not everyone is willing to admit that.
    - Hexstream 18y ago
      Oh, I get now. I agree.
- utx00 18y ago
  i myself stopped using my language of choice because it generated this assembler for a simple function: org 100h jmp start table1 db 97 dup (' ') table2 db 97 dup (' ') start: lea bx, table1 lea si, string1 call parse lea dx, string1 mov ah, 09 int 21h lea bx, table2 lea si, string1 call parse lea dx, string1 mov ah, 09 int 21h mov ah, 0 int 16h ret parse proc near next_char: cmp [si], '$' je end_of_string mov al, [si] cmp al, 'a' jb skip cmp al, 'z' ja skip xlatb mov [si], al skip: inc si jmp next_char end_of_string: ret parse endp end
snorkel 18y ago
I think we all agree that we make the effort to avoid using table for layout but sometimes it's the only sure way to get a consistent layout without lots of glue and duct tape.

dcminter 18y ago

I tried, and evidently failed, to make it clear that I am not in any way advocating a return to table based layout. I'm just frustrated that CSS is so much harder than table based layout to actually implement. When I see similar frustrations expressed elsewhere, they seem to be roundly condemned with comments of the form "no, CSS is EASY" yet any suggested workarounds for specific problems supporting that theory are of diabolic complexity.

gigawatt 18y ago
Thanks for clarifying. I just think that a valid case for the shortcomings of CSS can be made without even mentioning tables. And to be honest, now that I really know CSS, it is easier than tables. Tables might be easier when you're dealing with a single page, but any site that has even a slight variation in layouts will be much easier with CSS. It sounds like much of your frustration has to do with browser inconsistency, which isn't necessarily CSS's fault. Getting things to work on Firefox 3 is fairly easy. Getting it to work on you client's Windows 2000 desktop is not.
- dcminter 18y ago
  "Tables might be easier when you're dealing with a single page, but any site that has even a slight variety in layouts will be much easier with CSS." That's a valid point. Nonetheless I think that it is also valid to consider the ease with which tables can be used to express layout as a metric for what CSS ought to aspire to.

gruseom 18y ago

can we please collectively admit that tables are not the answer? Given that your question is sitting in html like this: p < span < td < tr < tbody < table < td < tr < tbody < table < td < tr < tbody < table < center < body < html ... I'd say the answer has to be no.

gigawatt 18y ago
that was definitely a surprising View Source...
Hexstream 18y ago
It doesn't say tables are the answer, it says table are an answer. It says nothing about a CSS version of the site.
- gruseom 18y ago
  I don't follow you. The question was "can we please collectively admit [that css is better than tables]". The answer is no, not everyone is willing to admit that.
  - Hexstream 18y ago
    Oh, I get now. I agree.
utx00 18y ago
i myself stopped using my language of choice because it generated this assembler for a simple function: org 100h jmp start table1 db 97 dup (' ') table2 db 97 dup (' ') start: lea bx, table1 lea si, string1 call parse lea dx, string1 mov ah, 09 int 21h lea bx, table2 lea si, string1 call parse lea dx, string1 mov ah, 09 int 21h mov ah, 0 int 16h ret parse proc near next_char: cmp [si], '$' je end_of_string mov al, [si] cmp al, 'a' jb skip cmp al, 'z' ja skip xlatb mov [si], al skip: inc si jmp next_char end_of_string: ret parse endp end

snorkel 18y ago

I think we all agree that we make the effort to avoid using table for layout but sometimes it's the only sure way to get a consistent layout without lots of glue and duct tape.