| Forum Home | ||||
| PC World Chat | ||||
| Thread ID: 57999 | 2005-05-18 09:35:00 | Tables websites should die | ad_267 (6193) | PC World Chat |
| Post ID | Timestamp | Content | User | ||
| 356302 | 2005-05-18 09:35:00 | The W3C says tables are for tabular data only and should not be used for layout. Anyone who hasn't already should upgrade to XHTML and CSS. With CSS you have one page that contains all the formatting for your page so that content is seperate in your html. Web Pages using CSS load faster because the stylesheet is only loaded once and you can change the look of your whole site by only editing one file. You can create print stylesheets so that printer friendly pages are printed automatically. Pages using CSS can also easily replicate tables designs with columns and degrade nicely in older browsers that don't support it (below NN4 and IE4). Use CSS :thumbs: |
ad_267 (6193) | ||
| 356303 | 2005-05-18 11:19:00 | Na ill stay with good old tables | sambaird (47) | ||
| 356304 | 2005-05-18 12:21:00 | I too shall continue to do exactly as i please.... | Metla (12) | ||
| 356305 | 2005-05-18 12:34:00 | You may have noticed that different browsers display tables differently, so avoiding them is best unless you have tabular data as prescribed by the W3C. Even IE has promised (whatever that may come to be) to use the W3C standards in the next incarnation, which is due out with Longhorn. Opera and FF now interprete CSS the same (I haven't noticed any sites that Opera and FF render CSS differently). But a better reason is the sheer ease of using the div elements, and the control you have over the look of the site by using CSS. Browsers also take far too long to render tables, especially the truly evil nested tables. |
vinref (6194) | ||
| 356306 | 2005-05-18 18:49:00 | Tables are good for positioning objects around the webpage. I would still stick with the good tables. Cheers :) |
Renmoo (66) | ||
| 356307 | 2005-05-18 22:07:00 | I use CSS whenever I can but I have yet to figure out how to position multiple columns and rows of thumbnail graphics on a page using CSS. It is far quicker and easier to just use tables in conjunction with CSS. Show me a good, easy-to-follow tutorial for doing the job and I will ditch tables and convert to CSS. |
FoxyMX (5) | ||
| 356308 | 2005-05-19 00:53:00 | I use CSS whenever I can but I have yet to figure out how to position multiple columns and rows of thumbnail graphics on a page using CSS . It is far quicker and easier to just use tables in conjunction with CSS . Show me a good, easy-to-follow tutorial for doing the job and I will ditch tables and convert to CSS . This is easier to do with the div element and the position=" " declaration than with tables, because you declare them all in the CSS and do not have to declare in each cell . You simply do one column at a time as a separate div, then put all the block pics in it . If they have the same dimensions then you declare them only once in the CSS . In fact, this is the exact reason why CSS are recommended above tables . A good-ish tutorial is at www . w3schools . com |
vinref (6194) | ||
| 356309 | 2005-05-19 01:52:00 | Na ill stay with good old tables I agree with sambaird here, I will stick with the good old tables as well. Also I have found using css for tables can be a right pain in the butt as well. |
stu161204 (123) | ||
| 356310 | 2005-05-19 04:24:00 | Why must it be an either / or situation? I use both. Its very fast to whip up a table, set to 700px and centered. And then enter your text formatted with css. On the other hand I have pages with 3 columns all made with css, and even use both types on the same pages. I am not sure if I can post links to the pages here (it might be seen as advertising) but if you want to see the pages, and steal the code I used, feel free to message me. |
netchicken (4843) | ||
| 356311 | 2005-05-19 05:12:00 | Tables. Just plain easier | Edward (31) | ||
| 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 | |||||