Wed designers / programmers / authors - read this!

[Ted Striker]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger


No it's not. Each browser tend to render tables differently, plus rendering complicated tables takes a very long time.

The problem is that you are ASSuming that anyone using tables is automatically using a bunch of nested tables. Not true.

Now we know you are not speaking from experience.

Nope.

You want one page with a bunch of white space and a few easy to read tags?

Or you want a garbled WYSIWYG crap making reference to a bunch of CSS files.

Sorry, tables are still better, faster, and easier to edit.

That 10% of your audience you are alienating by going for the latest and greatest, is 10% too much.

[Asher]

Simplicity is elegance and usability.

Minimalism.

[Ted Striker]

word

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Ted Striker
The problem is that you are ASSuming that anyone using tables is automatically using a bunch of nested tables. Not true.

No, I don't assume that. Even simple tables render slower than CSS, however.

Originally posted by Ted Striker
Nope.

You want one page with a bunch of white space and a few easy to read tags?

Or you want a garbled WYSIWYG crap making reference to a bunch of CSS files.

Sorry, tables are still better, faster, and easier to edit.

That 10% of your audience you are alienating by going for the latest and greatest, is 10% too much.

As I said, you have no idea what you are talking about.

Case in point: "one page with a bunch of white spaces and a few easy to read tags" (presumably related to tables mostly) does not translate into "a garbled WYSIWYG crap making reference to a bunch of CSS files." You need only one or two CSS statements for your page.

[Ted Striker]

That's the dumbest thing I've ever heard!

[Asher]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
No, I don't assume that. Even simple tables render slower than CSS, however.

Of course, it's not like CSS is largely useless overhead to begin with.

The problem with CSS is it's more incompatible than HTML. IE's CSS differs from Mozilla's CSS differs from Opera's CSS.

HTML tables are far more standard.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Ted Striker


That's the dumbest thing I've ever heard!

I've heard worse, from the same poster though.

[Ted Striker]

if ((is_ie4up && is_mac) || (is_ie4up && is_win) || (is_nav6 && is_mac)){
    sheet = "/includes/css1.css";
    }
else {
    sheet = "/includes/css2.css";
    } 

"Look Mom, I just painted Picasso with these TWO SIMPLE LINES!!!"

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Ted Striker


That's the dumbest thing I've ever heard!

Clearly, you fail to counter my argument

[Ted Striker]

spacer.gif is still your friend.

[Asher]

I don't think he needs to.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Asher


Of course, it's not like CSS is largely useless overhead to begin with.

Stop showing off your ignorance, Glonkie. There's no need to include any CSS statement that you don't need. Where's the overhead?

Originally posted by Asher
The problem with CSS is it's more incompatible than HTML. IE's CSS differs from Mozilla's CSS differs from Opera's CSS.

Just because IE doesn't support standard CSS doesn't mean other browsers don't.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Asher
I don't think he needs to.

Snooze.

Gratuitous use of smilies does not mask your (read: Ted Striker and Glonkie) ignorance in this area.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger


Just because IE doesn't support standard CSS doesn't mean other browsers don't.

Reality check baby: 95% of web browsers are IE.

So what's the real world standard -- IE or paper standards?

[Asher]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
Snooze.

Gratuitous use of smilies does not mask your (read: Ted Striker and Glonkie) ignorance in this area.

You just said CSS renders faster than a simple HTML table -- that more than invalidates everything you ever say on the matter of web development.

CSS is more flexible, usually requires less code, but a downside of this is it does have more processing overhead -- it needs to translate the "less code" into the same thing as the more explicit HTML tables.

[Ted Striker]

Exactly, so why not cut out the step and just put the explicit HTML code in the first place.

I do like an occasional inline CSS tag for things like font formatting. But in terms of placement HTML is the way to go.

CSS has "been the future" for years now. But people still use the tried and true HTML.

[Asher]

Saying CSS is faster than HTML is like saying C++ is faster than x86...

[Ted Striker]

good analogy

[ixnay]

If you're able to make a nice looking page with just tables then more power to you. I don't really care when I'm visiting pages how they're set up so long as they're functional.

However, I personally find that positioning with CSS is easier for complex layouts than strictly using tables. I use tables for simple things on my website still, for when I want my data to appear in table formats (gasp).

[Sirotnikov]

You want one page with a bunch of white space and a few easy to read tags?

Or you want a garbled WYSIWYG crap making reference to a bunch of CSS files.

you really have no idea what you are referring to.

CSS is exactly the thing to replace grabled WYSIWYG crap, using dozens of P , FONT, IMG src="spacer.gif", TABLE inside TABLE tags.

If you use dozens of css tags you have obviously failed to use classes or labels.

[Sirotnikov]

And there is no way that complex pages (web portals for instance) (or even this page) are 'easy to read' when they employ tons of useless tables.

[:) Smiley]

Is render time even an issue now with today's processor speeds?

Which one yields a smaller file size?

[Q Classic]

css is gorgeous.

so is xhtml and php.

you weren't using it before?

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Asher
Reality check baby: 95% of web browsers are IE.

So what's the real world standard -- IE or paper standards?

The real world stardard is what leading web designers use - which surely ain't the IE crap.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
The real world stardard is what leading web designers use - which surely ain't the IE crap.

So leading web designers don't design their pages to render in IE. Is that correct?

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Asher
You just said CSS renders faster than a simple HTML table -- that more than invalidates everything you ever say on the matter of web development.

Yes it does. As I pointed out, you need just one or two CSS statements to put a diplay element where you want it to be.

Originally posted by Asher
CSS is more flexible, usually requires less code, but a downside of this is it does have more processing overhead -- it needs to translate the "less code" into the same thing as the more explicit HTML tables.

What processing overhead?

The processing overhead comes from repeatedly using tables to do layouts. Every time you need to place an element, you have to go through the whole ritual. OTOH, once a style is defined under CSS, it can be used anywhere.

Where's the overhead?

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Asher
Saying CSS is faster than HTML is like saying C++ is faster than x86...

Once again Glonkie brazenly displays his utter ignorance in this area. Good work.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
Yes it does. As I pointed out, you need just one or two CSS statements to put a diplay element where you want it to be.

What processing overhead?

The processing overhead comes from repeatedly using tables to do layouts. Every time you need to place an element, you have to go through the whole ritual. OTOH, once a style is defined under CSS, it can be used anywhere.

Where's the overhead?

WTF? Do you even think about this?

You can do in one or two Java lines what it takes in 12-24 x86 lines, but which is going to be faster?

Do you comprehend what kind of parsing goes on on the browser side when you feed it only a few "simple" CSS commands and let it figure the details out?

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Asher
So leading web designers don't design their pages to render in IE. Is that correct?

Yes, in fact. Check out what Eric Meyer says.

They need to go through loops to make things render in IE, then MS would come to the rescue by bushwacking their workarounds.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
Yes, in fact.

Oh...my...God.

Words cannot describe the depths of your stupidity.

I'm so amazed that you seem to think pretty highly of yourself when it comes to technology, but just about every technology thread you post in, you are severely misinformed or misguided, or generally confused. It's like you're in your own little world...