-
-
Re: Taking table-less CSS design far too far
Andy Dingley <dingbat@codesm iths.com> wrote:[color=blue]
> http://thedailywtf.com/forums/thread/74148.aspx[/color]
Thanks for fun reading. But shouldn't it be posted in ciwas instead?
-
Re: Taking table-less CSS design far too far
Andy Dingley <dingbat@codesm iths.com> wrote:
[color=blue]
> http://thedailywtf.com/forums/thread/74148.aspx[/color]
I see tables.
--
Brian O'Connor (ironcorona)
Comment
-
Re: Taking table-less CSS design far too far
ironcorona wrote:[color=blue]
> Andy Dingley <dingbat@codesm iths.com> wrote:
>[color=green]
>> http://thedailywtf.com/forums/thread/74148.aspx[/color]
>
> I see tables.
>[/color]
Yeah ironic, the forum abuses tables for layout while the topic is the
misguided attempt to avoid tables for clearly tabular data...
--
Take care,
Jonathan
-------------------
LITTLE WORKS STUDIO
Comment
-
Re: Taking table-less CSS design far too far
Andy Dingley <dingbat@codesm iths.com> wrote:
[color=blue]
> http://thedailywtf.com/forums/thread/74148.aspx[/color]
It's scary what some people think about tables. I really can't see where
anyone gets the idea that tables shouldn't be used for tabular data!
The worst part of the page they discuss on the above is that at my
preferred font size, it looks like this:
--
Dylan Parry
http://electricfreedom.org -- Where the Music Progressively Rocks!
Comment
-
Re: Taking table-less CSS design far too far
On Wed, 24 May 2006 02:35:00 -0700, VK wrote:
[color=blue]
> Thanks for fun reading.[/color]
Fun???
I was pulling my hair out with annoyance
--
JDS | jeffrey@example .invalid
| http://www.newtnotes.com
DJMBS | http://newtnotes.com/doctor-jeff-master-brainsurgeon/
Comment
-
Re: Taking table-less CSS design far too far
Dylan Parry wrote:[color=blue]
> Andy Dingley <dingbat@codesm iths.com> wrote:
>[color=green]
>> http://thedailywtf.com/forums/thread/74148.aspx[/color]
>
> It's scary what some people think about tables. I really can't see where
> anyone gets the idea that tables shouldn't be used for tabular data![/color]
<snip>
Simply hearing someone make the slip of the tongue that "tables are
deprecated".
What next? People coding up a whole website using no element other than
DIV, and maybe SPAN as well?
Stewart.
Comment
-
Re: Taking table-less CSS design far too far
Stewart Gordon wrote:
[color=blue]
> Simply hearing someone make the slip of the tongue that "tables are
> deprecated".[/color]
You'd have to be pretty stupid to accept that sort of statement at face
value though! :) I can't (or rather don't want to) believe that anyone
who has any mind of their own wouldn't say "what? completely?" or
something similar.
--
Dylan Parry
http://electricfreedom.org -- Where the Music Progressively Rocks!
Comment
-
Re: Taking table-less CSS design far too far
On Wed, 24 May 2006 15:15:31 +0100, Stewart Gordon <smjg_1998@yaho o.com>
wrote:
[color=blue]
> What next? People coding up a whole website using no element other than
> DIV, and maybe SPAN as well?[/color]
That's been here for a while now, haven't you noticed? :)
It amazes me how in such a short space of time we've gone from tag soup
loving CSS bashers to morons who have missed the whole point of CSS and
think tables are banned and that we now use DIVs and SPANs instead of
paragraphs and lists etc. Or worse still are the sites where they still
use table layouts but every cell contains a DIV wrapped around its
contents, or even DIVs around each paragraph, list or other block level
element. And that's before you consider too many class names being used,
most of which have names like "BlueLeftBa r" or "SmallWhiteText " etc.
And it's going to get *much* worse because peoples' fixation with CSS and
purging themselves of tables hasn't got into full swing yet. Funny thing
is, many of the sites that use DIVs everywhere also loyally promote
Firefox. There's a standards bandwagon people have jumped on without
really knowing or caring what those standards mean. It started years ago
with doctypes, then using XHTML markup on pages served as HTML and now
they've all gone CSS crazy. I fear that in a couple of years time things
like incompatible DOMs, quirky CSS implementations , abusing tags for
layout (such as table layouts or blockquotes to indent text) or using
<font color="red" face="times" style="color:#f f0000;font-family:times"> so
that "browsers with and without CSS will display the page the same" will
seem trivial compared to the CSS soup that's out there and the problems
that brings.
But I think part of the blame has to go to messageboards and newsgroups
where people who do know tell those who don't that "You shouldn't use
tables and font tags. Use DIVs and SPANs instead" without spelling it out
to them that they're referring to layout and presentational effects. But
by the same token too many people have never been bothered to read the
specs or even a tutorial properly. They just skim-read a coupld of
paragraphs and messageboard posts and assume what is meant instead of
reading what is said.
Comment
-
Re: Taking table-less CSS design far too far
_Stewart Gordon_ skrev | wrote | écrivit (24-05-2006 16:15):
[color=blue]
> What next? People coding up a whole website using no element other than
> DIV, and maybe SPAN as well?[/color]
Well, I did that!
Needless to say, it was an *experiment* in making a sort-of microformat
mimicking XHTML2. The purpose was to experiment (among others) with nesting of
<h> and <section> elements, and their styling with CSS...
But please, try this /only/ at home!
--
Venlig hilsen | Kind regards | Cordialement
Frank
_______________ _______________ _____________
Being a bit off-topic...
Comment
-
Re: Taking table-less CSS design far too far
On Wed, 24 May 2006 16:15:31 +0200, Stewart Gordon <smjg_1998@yaho o.com>
wrote:
[color=blue]
> What next? People coding up a whole website using no element other than
> DIV, and maybe SPAN as well?[/color]
Why use SPAN if you can use
DIV.inline { display: inline; }
???
--
Garmt de Vries
Comment
-
Re: Taking table-less CSS design far too far
Garmt de Vries wrote:
[color=blue]
> Why use SPAN if you can use
>
> DIV.inline { display: inline; }[/color]
You can't put a div into a <h> or <p>, I'm sure there are others.
--
Brian O'Connor (ironcorona)
Comment
-
Re: Taking table-less CSS design far too far
_ironcorona_ skrev | wrote | écrivit (24-05-2006 18:52):
[color=blue]
> You can't put a div into a <h> or <p>, I'm sure there are others.[/color]
Why use <h> and <p> when you can use <div class="heading" > and <div
class="paragrap h"> ;-)
--
Venlig hilsen | Kind regards | Cordialement
Frank
Comment
-
Re: Taking table-less CSS design far too far
Stewart Gordon wrote:[color=blue]
>
> Simply hearing someone make the slip of the tongue that "tables are
> deprecated".
>
> http://smjg.port5.com/faqs/web/html/tablesdep.html
>
> What next? People coding up a whole website using no element other than
> DIV, and maybe SPAN as well?[/color]
<html> is now deprecated
Comment
-
Re: Taking table-less CSS design far too far
Dylan Parry wrote:[color=blue]
> Stewart Gordon wrote:
>[color=green]
>>Simply hearing someone make the slip of the tongue that "tables are
>>deprecated" .[/color]
>
> You'd have to be pretty stupid to accept that sort of statement at face
> value though! :) I can't (or rather don't want to) believe that anyone
> who has any mind of their own wouldn't say "what? completely?" or
> something similar.[/color]
"Never underestimate the power of human stupidity" - R. A. Heinlein
Comment
Comment