CSS Tables not practical?

[Alan J. Flavell]

Re: CSS Tables not practical?

On Thu, 15 Jan 2004, Brian wrote:
[color=blue]
> Mason A. Clark wrote:[color=green]
> >
> > I looked at www.w3c.org uses CSS. If I hit the refresh button, F5, the
> > layout breaks up.[/color]
>
> I cannot replicate the problem you describe.[/color]

As a point of information, IE sends different Accept: strings for an
initial request than for a reload. So if the server implements
content negotiation, it's possible to get a different document variant
on a reload than what one got initially.

However, that wasn't the cause of the problem that I experienced with
one page which fell about when reloaded. See the "content-type saga"
for more detail (the subheading that mentions Big5):

http://ppewww.ph.gla.ac.uk/~flavell/www/content-type.html

Sure, I've no idea whether either of those causes have any relevance
to the hon. usenaut's vague allegations.

[Brian]

Re: CSS Tables not practical?

Alan J. Flavell wrote:[color=blue]
>
> As a point of information, IE sends different Accept: strings for an
> initial request than for a reload. So if the server implements
> content negotiation, it's possible to get a different document variant
> on a reload than what one got initially.[/color]

Ah hah! That explains some (but not all) of the strange behavior I
noticed with IE 5/Win and a site I've developed. In fact, I just
posted a message in ciwa.site-design about it.
message id: 5gANb.59856$Rc4 .216190@attbi_s 54

Do you know why the accept header changes on reload?

--
Brian
follow the directions in my address to email me

[Spartanicus]

Re: CSS Tables not practical?

Anne van Kesteren <mail@annevanke steren.nl> wrote:
[color=blue][color=green][color=darkred]
>>>>IE does not support CSS tables. Note that CSS tables are to be used for
>>>>layout, not to replace regular tables.
>>>
>>>In HTML (and still, browsers are using it: "table{display: table;}").[/color]
>>
>> What are you talking about?[/color]
>
>In XML CSS tables have to be used to replace regular tables.[/color]

XML doesn't have semantic elements. No tables: nothing to replace.

--
Spartanicus

[Anne van Kesteren]

Re: CSS Tables not practical?

Spartanicus wrote:[color=blue]
> XML doesn't have semantic elements. No tables: nothing to replace.
>[/color]

I'm sorry, I said that whole wrong. What I meant that in an XML document
that is not equal to XHTML or any other 'by the browser prestyled'
language you can have data that you want to format is a normal table.

You will need CSS tables for that. The specification gives some examples
of that: <http://www.w3.org/TR/CSS21/tables.html#ano nymous-boxes>


--
Anne van Kesteren
<http://www.annevankest eren.nl/>

[Spartanicus]

Re: CSS Tables not practical?

Anne van Kesteren <mail@annevanke steren.nl> wrote:
[color=blue]
>You will need CSS tables for that. The specification gives some examples
>of that: <http://www.w3.org/TR/CSS21/tables.html#ano nymous-boxes>[/color]

I don't see why XML should be dragged into this thread (it's an XML
example).

But I misread the OP's question, he wasn't asking about CSS tables, Alan
read it right; the OP is simply struggling to replace a conventional
table layout with a CSS one.

--
Spartanicus

[Mason A. Clark]

Re: CSS Tables not practical?


I'm going to thank all of you for your comments. I am now less "newbie" and
making progress on a css layout working in MSIE, Netscape, Opera. (Opera's
javascript is another matter.)

My web site layout currently uses <table><tr><t d> etc. I'm wondering why
I am reading "tables *misused* for layout" -- they seem to have worked
without complaint for several years (css didn't exist :-).

The tables behave well. I suspect that css boxes will be nervous nellies.

Thanks again -- I'll now exit to newbie land -- bye bye

Mason C

PS: The W3C.ORG page layout "broke up" on F5 reload in MSIE by the center
"News" column dropping below the left column.

<HR>-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

On Wed, 14 Jan 2004 21:30:56 GMT, Mason A. Clark <masoncNOT@THIS ix.netcom.comQ>
wrote:
[color=blue]
>CSS Experts:
>
>OK, I'm a stupid newby. Now, here's the question:
>
>Can CSS replace slightly complicated Tables and work in three
>browsers (e.g. MSIE 6.0, Net 7.1, Op 7.03) ?
>
>After countless attempts I've concluded "no".
>
> Thank you,
>
> Mason C
>
>( not pertinent; for identification only: http://masonc.home.netcom.com )[/color]

[Neal]

Re: CSS Tables not practical?

On Fri, 16 Jan 2004 07:50:31 GMT, Mason A. Clark
<masoncNOT@THIS ix.netcom.comQ> wrote:
[color=blue]
> My web site layout currently uses <table><tr><t d> etc. I'm wondering
> why
> I am reading "tables *misused* for layout" -- they seem to have worked
> without complaint for several years (css didn't exist :-).[/color]

Well, it was misused even then. Markup as "table" should mean it's a
"table", right? I don't think you'd argue that, if I made all my headings
on a page p's with big bold text and all of the paragraphs h2's with
smaller plain text, it was a bright idea.

Especially now that CSS is here, there's no excuse for calling a layout a
table. Mark my words, sites with table markup used for layout will *soon*
be thought of in the same category as sites using blink and marquee.
[color=blue]
> The tables behave well. I suspect that css boxes will be nervous
> nellies.[/color]

Not if you don't want them to. Do yourself a favor, learn more about it
before you pass judgement. I first tried it here and there about 2 years
ago. Only in the last 6 months or so have I really gotten into it. Didn't
take me long to realize the possibilities. Have you seen the CSS Zen
Garden? I personally don't like many of the designs, but the point is that
your flexibility in CSS design while maintaining meaningful markup for
those who need it is unparalleled in typical table layout.

[color=blue]
> PS: The W3C.ORG page layout "broke up" on F5 reload in MSIE by the
> center
> "News" column dropping below the left column.[/color]

If I set my browser to, say, 500 pixels wide, the far right column drops
below the left. What resolution are you at? Seems their layout is
optimized for 640px wide minimum. Go much below that, rather than have
horizontal scrolling they move the columns down.

Believe it or not, that's not a bug, that's a feature. CSS allows layout
to adjust to look good at any browser size, or you can fix it so you have
to horizontally scroll below a certain pixel width of your viewport.

As I have always hated using table markup for layout, I haven't done a lot
of it, but I've studied such layouts on many sites. To me, CSS might not
be able to do every last thing you can do with a table, but it can do
nearly everything, and better.

[Andrew Thompson]

Re: CSS Tables not practical?

"Neal" <neal413@spamrc n.com> wrote in message
news:opr1uzytw2 dvhyks@news.rcn .com...
....
| ...Mark my words, sites with table markup
| used for layout will *soon*
| be thought of in the same category
| as sites using blink and marquee.

I wish that were true, but I very much
doubt it. My reasoning is that blink/marquee
were transparently obvious to the user,
whereas using a table for layout is not.

--
Andrew Thompson
* http://www.PhySci.org/ PhySci software suite
* http://www.1point1C.org/ 1.1C - Superluminal!
* http://www.AThompson.info/andrew/ personal site

[Christoph Paeper]

Re: CSS Tables not practical?

*Neal*:[color=blue]
>
> Especially now that CSS is here,[/color]

Where?
[color=blue]
> Mark my words, sites with table markup used for layout will *soon*
> be thought of in the same category as sites using blink and marquee.[/color]

There are much more important threats to usability and accessibility on the
current Web than tables (2-5 cells) used to apply a basic structure to a
page. Such a simple table is certainly better than a meaningless div soup
with some ugly, hackish, unreliable CSS.

Multiple nested tables just for layout _are_ bad, though.

--
Useless Fact #5:
'Dreamt' is the only English word that ends in the letters 'mt'.
'I am.' is the shortest complete sentence in the English language.
The longest one-syllable word in the English language is 'screeched.'

[Brian]

Re: CSS Tables not practical?

Christoph Paeper wrote:[color=blue]
>
> There are much more important threats to usability and
> accessibility on the current Web than tables (2-5 cells)[/color]

Undoubtedly. So perhaps someone who is in charge of an
already-existing, badly-coded web site should fix other problems
before removing incorrect markup. But that does not change the advice
for creating pages: use correct markup first. <table> for tabular
data, not layouts; <blockquote> for long quotations, not indent; <p>
for paragraphs, not newline or vertical spacing; etc.
[color=blue]
> used to apply a basic structure to a page. Such a simple table is
> certainly better than a meaningless div soup[/color]

Meaningless is better than incorrect. If it's not a table, then don't
mark it up as such.
[color=blue]
> with some ugly, hackish, unreliable CSS.[/color]

CSS is optional. It can be turned off quite easily in IE/Win, Mozilla,
and Opera (the latter is especially easy, I've heard). Misused table
markup can only be turned off in Opera. And in some browsing
situations, CSS -- even ugly, hackish, unreliable CSS -- is not
applied in the first place.

--
Brian
follow the directions in my address to email me

[Andrew Thompson]

Re: CSS Tables not practical?

"Christoph Paeper" <christoph.paep er@nurfuerspam. de> wrote in
message news:bu8u8t$1a7 t$1@ariadne.rz. tu-clausthal.de...
....
| 'I am.' is the shortest complete sentence in the English
language.

And the longest sentence known to man? 'I do.' ;-)

[Harlan Messinger]

Re: CSS Tables not practical?


"Christoph Paeper" <christoph.paep er@nurfuerspam. de> wrote in message
news:bu8u8t$1a7 t$1@ariadne.rz. tu-clausthal.de...
[color=blue]
> Useless Fact #5:
> 'Dreamt' is the only English word that ends in the letters 'mt'.
> 'I am.' is the shortest complete sentence in the English language.
> The longest one-syllable word in the English language is 'screeched.'[/color]

Tied with "strengths" and "straights" .

[Neal]

Re: CSS Tables not practical?

On Fri, 16 Jan 2004 16:00:10 +0100, Christoph Paeper
<christoph.paep er@nurfuerspam. de> wrote:
[color=blue]
> *Neal*:[color=green]
>>
>> Especially now that CSS is here,[/color]
>
> Where?[/color]

Open your eyes, look around. As authors learn more about it - and that is
taking time - you'll see it more and more.
[color=blue][color=green]
>> Mark my words, sites with table markup used for layout will *soon*
>> be thought of in the same category as sites using blink and marquee.[/color]
>
> There are much more important threats to usability and accessibility on
> the
> current Web than tables (2-5 cells) used to apply a basic structure to a
> page. Such a simple table is certainly better than a meaningless div soup
> with some ugly, hackish, unreliable CSS.[/color]

Hmm. Care to provide a simple 2 to 5 cell table layout that cannot be
replicated with a comparable amount of keystrokes using divs and CSS
positioning?

I'm not saying table layouts can't look great. And I don't think they're
so evil they shouldn't be allowed within 500 feet of a school. But if the
proper tools for positioning can do it as well or better, does it still
make sense to use incorrect markup?

Consider this too - how are tables displayed in a handheld? They are often
a freakin' mess. Compare to how CSS positioning degrades.

Not only is CSS positioning the correct markup, it is more future-proof
than table layout.

[Barry Pearson]

Re: CSS Tables not practical?

Mason A. Clark wrote:[color=blue]
> I'm going to thank all of you for your comments. I am now less
> "newbie" and making progress on a css layout working in MSIE,
> Netscape, Opera. (Opera's javascript is another matter.)
>
> My web site layout currently uses <table><tr><t d> etc. I'm
> wondering why
> I am reading "tables *misused* for layout" -- they seem to have
> worked without complaint for several years (css didn't exist :-).[/color]

Simple layout tables will also continue to work for perhaps the next 2
decades.

There is a *fact* that some people may not like to see revealed. From the time
that Dave Raggett proposed tables in "HTML+" in November 1993, tables have
been *intended* to display cells in a horizontal + vertical grid. And from
that date tables cells have been proposed and defined to contain complex
material, including headers, paragraphs, lists, text, and other stuff. (Which
is one of the reasons why their tags and attributes have terms like "row" and
"col" - that isn't an accident!)

Every single proposal and standard and Recommendation from that time onwards
has continued this theme, as far as I know. Tables are designed to layout
complex things in a grid-formation. It isn't an accident - they were always
intended to work like that! The proposals were, and the browsers were. That is
the defined nature of the web.

The very latest proposals are for XHTML 2.0, which we won't even see for
years. And guess what - just the same! Tables are designed & intended to deal
with complex content, and put it into a rectilinear array in visual-mode. That
is the current official W3C position on XHTML 2.0.

I have put lots of authoritative links to demonstrate that position in:
"A brief history of tables"

http://www.barry.pearson.name/articles/layout_tables/history.htm

[color=blue]
> The tables behave well. I suspect that css boxes will be nervous
> nellies.[/color]
[snip]

Tables behave very well, typically. My experience of CSS positioning is that
it is "an incompetent system". I have described my justification for this in:
"Reflection s on CSS Positioning"

http://www.barry.pearson.name/articles/layout_tables/css_positioning.htm

*Don't try to take part in this holy war!* You are responsible for what you
do. Use tables, CSS-P, hybrid schemes or something else. But take charge -
don't be bullied. You are the one who gets the blame!

--
Barry Pearson

http://www.Barry.Pearson.name/photography/

http://www.BirdsAndAnimals.info/

http://www.ChildSupportAnalysis.co.uk/

[Mason A. Clark]

Re: CSS Tables not practical?

Barry:

Wow! You made my day --- hell, you made my year 2004 !

Thank you !!!!!

Mason C ( maybe not as dumb as I thought I was )

P.S.

But I experienced data to contest this:

' Across the world, taller children tend to be more knowledgeable than shorter
children. Is this "sizeism" or some genetic defect?

Primarily no. The hidden variable is "age". Older children tend to be taller.
Older children tend to know more. '


On Fri, 16 Jan 2004 22:03:24 -0000, "Barry Pearson"
<news@childsupp ortanalysis.co. uk> wrote:

summarized:
' My experience of CSS positioning is that it is "an incompetent system" '
[color=blue]
>Mason A. Clark wrote:[color=green]
>> I'm going to thank all of you for your comments. I am now less
>> "newbie" and making progress on a css layout working in MSIE,
>> Netscape, Opera. (Opera's javascript is another matter.)
>>
>> My web site layout currently uses <table><tr><t d> etc. I'm
>> wondering why
>> I am reading "tables *misused* for layout" -- they seem to have
>> worked without complaint for several years (css didn't exist :-).[/color]
>
>Simple layout tables will also continue to work for perhaps the next 2
>decades.
>
>There is a *fact* that some people may not like to see revealed. From the time
>that Dave Raggett proposed tables in "HTML+" in November 1993, tables have
>been *intended* to display cells in a horizontal + vertical grid. And from
>that date tables cells have been proposed and defined to contain complex
>material, including headers, paragraphs, lists, text, and other stuff. (Which
>is one of the reasons why their tags and attributes have terms like "row" and
>"col" - that isn't an accident!)
>
>Every single proposal and standard and Recommendation from that time onwards
>has continued this theme, as far as I know. Tables are designed to layout
>complex things in a grid-formation. It isn't an accident - they were always
>intended to work like that! The proposals were, and the browsers were. That is
>the defined nature of the web.
>
>The very latest proposals are for XHTML 2.0, which we won't even see for
>years. And guess what - just the same! Tables are designed & intended to deal
>with complex content, and put it into a rectilinear array in visual-mode. That
>is the current official W3C position on XHTML 2.0.
>
>I have put lots of authoritative links to demonstrate that position in:
>"A brief history of tables"
>http://www.barry.pearson.name/articl...es/history.htm
>[color=green]
>> The tables behave well. I suspect that css boxes will be nervous
>> nellies.[/color]
>[snip]
>
>Tables behave very well, typically. My experience of CSS positioning is that
>it is "an incompetent system". I have described my justification for this in:
>"Reflection s on CSS Positioning"
>http://www.barry.pearson.name/articl...ositioning.htm
>
>*Don't try to take part in this holy war!* You are responsible for what you
>do. Use tables, CSS-P, hybrid schemes or something else. But take charge -
>don't be bullied. You are the one who gets the blame![/color]