Ian Young wrote:
>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
....
>No need to scorn -
> read an learn my friend.
Yikes this is really getting out of hand. I do not know if this is some
sort of hazing or what.
The question I posed was an honest reply to Eric's request - and was not
about 5 columns layouts but rather about a specific issue on one of my
pages, for which I gave a link.
There was no scorn expressed, and if it seemed so, then it was entirely
unintentional. I am a strong proponent of the use of CSS and
unobtrusive javascripts (see my website, www.divaHTML.com) for support
of these statements). I also very much appreciate the smart people who
frequent and help on this site.
Neither do I run from learning css as has been suggested twice now.
Rather I asked a question and now find that to suggest a table might be
an acceptable alternative to css for my particular problem seems to have
prompted personal attack. Why I do not know.
What I *thought* I was doing was participating in an open discussion of
ideas and techniques.
I do hope this ends this now.
--
E. Michael Brandt
www.divaHTML.com
divaPOP : standards-compliant popup windows
divaGPS : you-are-here menu highlighting
divaFAQ : FAQ pages with pizazz
www.valleywebdesigns.com
JustSo PictureWindow
JustSo PhotoAlbum
--
>> 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/
>
>
______________________________________________________________________
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/
