4 ms·
It is still not clear to me why you discount display:table as a valid and useful tool for placing content in a grid. Sure, it is not as sophisticated as Displa
by bazoom42 3y ago
It is still not clear to me why you discount display:table as a valid and useful tool for placing content in a grid.
Sure, it is not as sophisticated as Display:grid eg it doesn’t support changing the number of columns depending on the viewport width and it doesnt support elements overlapping multiple grid cells. But many common “full-page” layouts, like header, sidebar, footer can be expressed using “display:table”.
- crispyambulance 3y agoMy memory is a bit foggy, but I recall there was an issue with older browsers back in those days not supporting display:table. So if you wanted to "do right" you could not because IE6 was still "a thing" and did not support display:table. You were forced to use actual tables for layout or do endless tedious workarounds to make things work. Who to blame? The W3C? Microsoft? I don't know but I glad those kinds of problems are mostly over.
- bazoom42 3y agoOh yeah, IE 6 did not support display:table. This was the age of hacks. Microsoft basically managed to block any progress on web standards for half a decade. I’m not sure why you’d blame this on W3C though. IE stasis froze any standard including ECMAScript. It was Microsofts attempt to halt the progress of the web because they considered it a threat to their desktop dominance. Luckily it didn’t work.