I wouldn't say its entirely off topic. This is a CSS discussion list & there is definitely a discussion about CSS in the nature of the email. I think it could be rephrased "Google (to my amazement) doesn't use CSS for layout. If someone that big isn't using CSS, should I think there is some valid use for tables as a layout tool?"
I'm new to this list & don't want to give myself a bad name right out of the gate, but I have to say I struggle with this one. There are some problems that CSS just doesn't seem able to solve yet. Usually (though not always) its a problem with IE and not with CSS itself, but occasionally you just can't do something you want to do for whatever reason. So to bring the language back to something more on-topic, when (if ever), as a standards conscious designer/developer do you just get to the point that the clients desire for a layout, and your desire for a paycheck, becomes more important than the standards & say "forget it, I know a table can do this" and resort to the old school way of doing things. (I know its in their best interests to be accessible, but in the real world sometimes they just don't care about screen readers or international users & they just need a particular layout.) Or, as some of you may argue, is there nothing CSS can't do? I'll have to state up front that I have two big things that for me are even more evil than tables and I'd almost rather use font tags before I resort to them: 1. IE hacks* (e.g. backslash hacks or use of the * selector) 2. Quirks Mode * Note: I don't consider IE's conditional comments to be "hacks" Without those two things that I just can't justify (I think they constitute broken functionality & are just as invalid as using tables for layout) I cant find CSS answers in IE for something like a fixed (px) height, fixed position, footer without using tables. Do you take a step backwards in your interface & force yourself not to use a specific design just cause the "standards" say it can't be done? I've been really back & forth on the issue, but I'm in the middle of a project that's going to need a solution for IE real soon. Just curious on the opinions & how you guys solve your layout problems. On Jul 27, 2006, at 7:28 PM, Christian Montoya wrote: > On 7/28/06, Dave Goodchild <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Has anyone ever noticed that the Google home page and gmail.com >> use tables >> for layout, deprecated elements, frames, font tags, body >> attributes like >> vlink and so on and are invalid xhtml? I am shocked (late night >> browsing >> with FF web dev toolbar). Can anyone explain why this is the case. >> I have >> had four pints of San Miguel but surely I'm not that drunk...or >> naive? > > We talk about this on the WSG list all the time. The answer: Google > doesn't care. > > But this is off topic for this list, so here's WSG if you would like > to talk about it more: http://webstandardsgroup.org/ > > -- > -- > Christian Montoya > christianmontoya.com ... portfolio.christianmontoya.com > ______________________________________________________________________ > css-discuss [EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://www.css-discuss.org/mailman/listinfo/css-d > IE7b2 testing hub -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/?page=IE7 > List wiki/FAQ -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/ > Supported by evolt.org -- http://www.evolt.org/help_support_evolt/ ______________________________________________________________________ css-discuss [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.css-discuss.org/mailman/listinfo/css-d IE7b2 testing hub -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/?page=IE7 List wiki/FAQ -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/ Supported by evolt.org -- http://www.evolt.org/help_support_evolt/
