CSS Positioning: 2 Column Blog Theme: Assorted: Newbie Questions
in [CSS]
|
Prev: CSS Positioning: 2 Column Blog Theme: Assorted: Newbie Questions
Next: no cascade of DIV.links A:hover
From: dorayme on 18 May 2010 22:28 In article <hsvf8o$fpk$1(a)news.eternal-september.org>, "Jonathan N. Little" <lws4art(a)gmail.com> wrote: > dorayme wrote: > > In article<hsu7ju$b80$1(a)news.eternal-september.org>, > > "Jonathan N. Little"<lws4art(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > >> Steve wrote: > > ... > >>> ... What I read is that HTML tables are for tabular data, never > >>> having been meant to be used as layout grids. > >> > > ... > >> ... The topic has been recently argued ad nauseam in alt.html. > > > > Maybe with nausea but not with much light. > > > > If you confine page layout with HTML tables to mere columning and > > especially to one row only (and especially two cell only), the > > crime is not great and indeed the motivations can be slightly > > tabular: the site navigation in a left column with a highlighted > > item relating to the content you are seeing in the right column. > > In other words, all is not quite black and white in spite of all > > the words that fundamentalist adherents will use to try to make > > it so. > > > > As I recall I was challenging the assertion that tables should *never* > be used for layout, and said should be avoided, not not banned all > together. You just need to understand the price... My remarks were not meant as criticism of you. Just something, in many ways, additional to push the wheelbarrow of my life long quest to defend some things against all odds. Australian Prime Minister Rudd might have had a chat with me before his silly announcement to postpone for so long his carbon trading policy. Just because it was looking unpopular and unlikely to get up! -- dorayme
From: Chris F.A. Johnson on 19 May 2010 05:49 On 2010-05-18, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: > Steve wrote: > >> Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: >>> Steve wrote: >>> > I did hear that there is a CSS "table", but as so often is the case, a >>> > lower version of IE still in use doesn't support it. >>> What you have heard is probably based on the misconception that tabular >>> data should be arranged with CSS instead of using a `table' element >>> because "tables are evil". In that case, forget about it. >> >> Nope. What I read is that HTML tables are for tabular data, never >> having been meant to be used as layout grids. > > That is correct (lucky one). But what is a "CSS 'table'" then and where did > you read about it? <http://www.w3.org/TR/CSS2/tables.html#table-display> -- Chris F.A. Johnson <http://cfajohnson.com> =================================================================== Author: Shell Scripting Recipes: A Problem-Solution Approach (2005, Apress) Pro Bash Programming: Scripting the GNU/Linux Shell (2009, Apress)
From: Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn on 19 May 2010 07:58 Chris F.A. Johnson wrote: > Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: >> Steve wrote: >>> Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: >>>> Steve wrote: >>>> > I did hear that there is a CSS "table", but as so often is the case, >>>> > a lower version of IE still in use doesn't support it. >>>> What you have heard is probably based on the misconception that tabular >>>> data should be arranged with CSS instead of using a `table' element >>>> because "tables are evil". In that case, forget about it. >>> >>> Nope. What I read is that HTML tables are for tabular data, never >>> having been meant to be used as layout grids. >> >> That is correct (lucky one). But what is a "CSS 'table'" then and where >> did you read about it? > > <http://www.w3.org/TR/CSS2/tables.html#table-display> You clearly misread "CSS 'table model'" as "'CSS table' model". I am aware of that section, thank you very much. Besides, how can *you* possibly know what *Steve* read? PointedEars -- realism: HTML 4.01 Strict evangelism: XHTML 1.0 Strict madness: XHTML 1.1 as application/xhtml+xml -- Bjoern Hoehrmann
From: Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn on 19 May 2010 08:18 dorayme wrote: > Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: >> Steve wrote: >> > Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: >> >> Steve wrote: >> >> > I did hear that there is a CSS "table", but as so often is the case, >> >> > a lower version of IE still in use doesn't support it. >> >> What you have heard is probably based on the misconception that >> >> tabular data should be arranged with CSS instead of using a `table' >> >> element >> >> because "tables are evil". In that case, forget about it. >> > >> > Nope. What I read is that HTML tables are for tabular data, never >> > having been meant to be used as layout grids. >> >> That is correct (lucky one). But what is a "CSS 'table'" then and where >> did you read about it? > > Be careful Steve, this guy will try to trap you So that is what you call making people think twice? Interesting. Ask yourself who is the real troll around here. As for me, no trap whatsoever is intended. > so that he can come back with wooden stuff like that styling with display: > table does not make for "a table". And it would not. While the presentation would be table-like, if it was not a `table' element or one of its necessary descendants, the semantics of the markup would not reflect its presentation. That would make the resulting document not accessible, and probably non-interoperable. But since I have seen that Steve already knows that such a thing should not be done, I am curious to hear what he meant instead. PointedEars -- realism: HTML 4.01 Strict evangelism: XHTML 1.0 Strict madness: XHTML 1.1 as application/xhtml+xml -- Bjoern Hoehrmann
From: Albert Ross on 19 May 2010 10:38
On Sun, 16 May 2010 11:20:08 -0700 (PDT), Steve <tinker123(a)gmail.com> wrote: >On May 11, 12:39�pm, Albert Ross <s...(a)devnull.co.uk.invalid> wrote: >> See if some of this guy's ideas work for you >> >> http://matthewjamestaylor.com/blog/-website-layouts > >Wow, this site was golden. > >I found a template for exactly what I needed and I found tutorials for >when I want to learn why it works. > >I thought CSS was easier than HTML up until now, when I attempted >something with serious positioning. CSS positioning doesn't seem >intuitive, at least for gridlike layouts. It doesn't seem like you >can predict what will do what. I'm guessing it is like everything >else that once you get practice in it will start to seem intuitive and >be a time saver? It isn't intuitive until you bend your intuition into a Moebius strip and weld it. Dorayme is good at this . . . |