As a guy who grokked HTML in the days of table-based layouts, I loved, and still love, tables -- especially for tabular data or simple columns.
As a guy who these days writes a ton of dynamic apps for delivery to multiple clients, I have love for CSS. And yes, CSS pwns font styling, no question. Crazily enough, you can use CSS styles within a table-based layout, and get the best of both worlds. As someone who despises the cross-browser cross-platform crap that's forced on us, table-based layouts are easier, but far less capable of being truly stunning looking/feeling/behaving, and less flexible of adapting one intricate layout to another for a new or seasonal or specific campaign look without massive rewrites. One's history, target platform(s) and audience(s) certainly dictate your perspective on this. Thanks- - Andy Badera - and...@badera.us - (518) 641-1280 - Google me: http://www.google.com/search?q=andrew+badera On Sun, Jan 18, 2009 at 6:59 AM, Ron Koster <r...@psymon.com> wrote: > At 08:31 PM 1/18/2009 +0900, Philippe Wittenbergh wrote: > >Christian means: move that sidebar (right column in your code) to the > >left of the page, without modifying your html code. That is very easy > >to do with a (decently) stylesheet. > > Ah, okay. Well, sure, I see what you mean, and how that would be > easier with CSS, but I do have to sit here and wonder... geez, when > you folks create a web site, and you've finished/finalized the > design, aren't you happy with it? Or do you just continually change > the layout, just for the sake of changing the layout ("because you can")? > > This has me thinking that perhaps my perspective comes from the fact > that I came to web design after being into desktop publishing -- > which, of course, is "stagnant" (i.e. in the sense that once one has > created something, and put it into print, one doesn't have the option > of going back and re-doing it, at least not without coming out with a > "second edition" or whatever). On the other hand, perhaps for those > of you who began your "careers" (whether professionally or > non-professionally) in web design, the whole medium is just so > conducive to change that that is your inclination -- to constantly > change things around (and probably confuse any regular visitors!), > simply because "you can". > > I don't know. Any time I create a new site, I try to create something > that -- in my mind, at least -- is "perfect" (so-to-speak), which is > visually exactly what I'm trying to convey. Now, if that means having > a nav bar on the left and a side bar on the right, well, if that's > what looks "right" to me, then I can't see why I would then go and > change it, making it visibly "imperfect" (at least, to anyone with > any sort of design sense). > > Of course, I am using the term "perfection" loosely -- there isn't > any such thing (when it comes to art) -- and it is all subjective, > but if I've gotten it "right", well, then I've gotten it "right". > Sure, there is the possibility that I might change my mind down the > road and want to change the layout (or whatever), but even if that > happens, we're only talking about, what, once every 5, 10 years or > something? > > In the meantime, I can create a site and essentially forget about it > -- and when Internet Explorer version 1042 (beta) comes out, and for > all the decades in-between, I can rest with comfort, reasonably and > justifiably assured that my site has worked and looked just fine, all > along, I won't have to go off into a panic *each* time that *any* > browser comes out with a new version, endlessly testing and revising my > code. > > Hey, don't get me wrong, I really *do* embrace CSS, and really > *would* like to learn more and then transform my sites into CSS > layouts, because I know that that's exactly what it was meant for -- > but, quite frankly, a lot of these responses to this thread are > actually having the reverse effect that is intended, and are actually > providing me with additional reasons that tables do, in fact, work > much better (at least, at this point in the development of where CSS > is at, and most certainly in the long run, as evidenced by the > longevity, and lack of need for revisions, of my own sites). > > Yea, O Faithful Ones! I want to believe! I want to believe! But, > pray, I ask thee: what about the dinosaurs? The CSS scriptures > predict that the 8th Coming of the Browser is nigh, at which point > all the coding will be washed away and a new world will begin -- but > in my philosophy all is well, and there is, and has forever been, Eternity. > > Ron ;) > > Woof?... http://www.Psymon.com > Ach, du Leni!... http://www.Riefenstahl.org > Hmm... http://www.Imaginary-Friend.ca > > ______________________________________________________________________ > css-discuss [cs...@lists.css-discuss.org] > http://www.css-discuss.org/mailman/listinfo/css-d > List wiki/FAQ -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/ > List policies -- http://css-discuss.org/policies.html > Supported by evolt.org -- http://www.evolt.org/help_support_evolt/ > ______________________________________________________________________ css-discuss [cs...@lists.css-discuss.org] http://www.css-discuss.org/mailman/listinfo/css-d List wiki/FAQ -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/ List policies -- http://css-discuss.org/policies.html Supported by evolt.org -- http://www.evolt.org/help_support_evolt/
