3 ms·

I'm really not sure what point your comment is actually meant to convey. The relevant point which apparently needs clarification is that CSS has had "display:

I'm really not sure what point your comment is actually meant to convey. The relevant point which apparently needs clarification is that CSS has had "display: table" for bloody ages and "Blaming CSS for the inadequacies of MS browsers is flawed logic." If you don't want to use CSS because of the "inadequacies of MS browsers" or because your knowledge of CSS just isn't up to it in relation to particular layout you are trying to achieve, no one is holding a gun to your head. But don't blame CSS for this. I'm happy to come from the POV of pragmatism. I don't see myself as a CSS fanatic. But honestly, I have been using CSS so long that I actually find it harder to work with tables for layout (as I have recently found when I had to work on a legacy site that uses tables for layout). The markup is so much more verbose than what I am used to now (nested tables are evil, full stop). CSS layouts are clear and uncluttered to me in comparison. My own experience tells me that if you put the time in, CSS will make more sense than tables for layout and will become easier, regardless of the crappy support from some browser vendors. Whether one wishes to put the time in or not, is up to them.

eli 18y ago
I don't see how this is relevant at all. I'm not blaming CSS for anything. Who cares whose "fault" it is? My point is that it doesn't matter what CSS could do with the right browser. Out here in the real world, 38% of my site's traffic is IE6. If my design doesn't work perfectly in IE6, then it doesn't work period.
- jonny_noog 18y ago
  I don't see how this is relevant at all. I'm not blaming CSS for anything. Who cares whose "fault" it is? OK fair enough, maybe I interpreted the tone of your earlier comment in a way that you didn't intend. But I think it actually does matter whose fault it is to a certain extent though, only becuase people seem to be so quick to jump on the W3C while they give other organisations who sat on a crippled browser for years before Firefox freaked them out enough to get moving again, a comparitively free pass. I agree that moving forward, it really doesn't matter, but for the sake of historical accuracy, yeah it does. Your argument appears to be that you are unwilling to make use (or at least very much use) of CSS due to the lack of support from IE and that you cannot sufficiently support IE6 with CSS. I have been making sites with pure CSS that support IE6 for years. For sure it would be easier if IE supported display: table, but it's absolutely possible right now. Your initial quip implies that it is not possible right now and this is incorrect. If you wish not to implement a pure CSS layout due to not having the time, knowledge or inclination, that's your choice to make with your projects. But understand that this is all that holds you back. Incidentally, 38% is a pretty low IE6 stat, I envy you... If any of the sites I support hit that mark, I would seriously start thinking about dropping support for IE6 on that site all together, or at least looking at graceful degredation/progressive enhancement possibilities.

eli 18y ago

I don't see how this is relevant at all. I'm not blaming CSS for anything. Who cares whose "fault" it is? My point is that it doesn't matter what CSS could do with the right browser. Out here in the real world, 38% of my site's traffic is IE6. If my design doesn't work perfectly in IE6, then it doesn't work period.

jonny_noog 18y ago
I don't see how this is relevant at all. I'm not blaming CSS for anything. Who cares whose "fault" it is? OK fair enough, maybe I interpreted the tone of your earlier comment in a way that you didn't intend. But I think it actually does matter whose fault it is to a certain extent though, only becuase people seem to be so quick to jump on the W3C while they give other organisations who sat on a crippled browser for years before Firefox freaked them out enough to get moving again, a comparitively free pass. I agree that moving forward, it really doesn't matter, but for the sake of historical accuracy, yeah it does. Your argument appears to be that you are unwilling to make use (or at least very much use) of CSS due to the lack of support from IE and that you cannot sufficiently support IE6 with CSS. I have been making sites with pure CSS that support IE6 for years. For sure it would be easier if IE supported display: table, but it's absolutely possible right now. Your initial quip implies that it is not possible right now and this is incorrect. If you wish not to implement a pure CSS layout due to not having the time, knowledge or inclination, that's your choice to make with your projects. But understand that this is all that holds you back. Incidentally, 38% is a pretty low IE6 stat, I envy you... If any of the sites I support hit that mark, I would seriously start thinking about dropping support for IE6 on that site all together, or at least looking at graceful degredation/progressive enhancement possibilities.