> To: css-d@lists.css-discuss.org > Subject: Re: [css-d] Are table-based layouts still needed > > > Gunlaug Sørtun wrote: > > Divs are semantically neutral, which doesn't necessarily equate to > > meaningless when used to replicate a table. > > lol. That does seem a bit of circular logic to me. Nevertheless, I do > appreciate your interesting links and discussion of my question. It > does seem though that non-table solutions to my specific problem use so > much code, and add so much complexity, that I still lean towards the > more straightforward table. >
If I remember correctly (we seem to have been going around the houses for ages on this topic) , the issue was a 5 col layout that had equal lengths. Dead easy in CSS and much tidier than tables. This smacks of an argument that raged for some while on WebProWorld - bj will no doubt remember it well - where one contributor ranted (yes, ranted) about how much easier an creative tables were than CSS. After a year or so, the same contributor did a volte face and is now totally converted to the CSS cause. Main reason - he took th etime to understand the difference in approach and how to use CSS. The folks who have tried to assist you in this know what they are about and are very knowledgeable about both table and css layout. No need to scorn - read an learn my friend. Ian IY e-Solutions http://www.iyesolutions.co.uk No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.485 / Virus Database: 269.13.6/991 - Release Date: 05/09/2007 14:55 ______________________________________________________________________ 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/
