>At 12:08 AM -0400 5/20/07, Kevin wrote: > >I have two images that I would like positoned side by side.
At 5/20/2007 05:11 AM, tedd wrote: >I don't see anything wrong with using a simple table for this. Tedd, I see the question the other way around: Why would you choose to use markup that's mismatched to the meaning of the content? Purely in order to get a desired presentational effect? Ah. Well, either you believe that the semantic integrity of the markup should take priority over presentational convenience or you don't. What's the problem? It's not as though anyone will *actually* shoot you for driving your markup from your presentation... I doubt that you really believe that these two anonymous images constitute tabular data -- you're just squinting so they look like that because you find it convenient to use table markup. If you believe they're data cells that semantically belong in two different columns and then the client changes their mind about the presentation and decides they should go one on top of the other, would you suddenly start believing that they were data cells that belonged in the same column? What happens, for example, when next month the number of images increases and they won't all fit on one row? Do we suddenly 'realize' that all along they belonged in separate rows and columns? Shouldn't our markup decisions be driven primarily by the meaning of the content rather than by presentational circumstance? Anyway, the particular case at hand is a weak excuse to rehash this old argument. There's no need to use table markup merely to position two images side by side. For starters, images are inline by default and will normally present horizontally unless constrained otherwise. Depending on the final effect the designer is after, there are a variety of markup and styling alternatives to explore before shoe-horning those images into table cells. Of course, semantics aside, one of the main practical reasons not to use tables for layout is that doing so constrains future redesign so much. If the markup is versatile and CSS controls presentation, it's possible to change one's mind about the presentation less painfully. Tables are not presentationally versatile. They're perfect for tabular data that inherently belongs in rows and columns; for anything else, it's like choosing rebar and concrete to build something we know perfectly well from past experience is likely to be redesigned. This seems like a good application of Occam's razor -- why complicate the situation more than it requires by using inappropriate and presentationally rigid markup? This topic has been discussed so exhaustively over the past few years, I'm frankly surprised you're raising it again here as though it were new terrain to be explored. And here, like the predictable fish, I've risen to take the bait! Regards, Paul __________________________ Paul Novitski Juniper Webcraft Ltd. http://juniperwebcraft.com ______________________________________________________________________ css-discuss [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.css-discuss.org/mailman/listinfo/css-d IE7 information -- 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/
