"My code might *look* like there's more work involved in creating it, but what you're not showing in your code is all the countless hacks and fixes that you have to implement 'behind the scenes'"
Let me just say that I have made perfectly functioning CSS sites without any hacks or fixes whatsoever. "but it's just as fantastic that some of us out there choose to stick with what does, in fact, really and truly work in the long haul, bug-free and quite possibly lasting 'forever.'" You think your enthusiasm for table-based layout means it's just as good. That's great. But there may be finer points here that you are not clear on. For instance, people always talk about how CSS has only been recently supported but many people (even professional web developers) don't seem to know that it's had quite a bit of support for quite some time. I have pages that I created in 1999 and 2000 where I haven't had to touch the CSS since then (or the layout) and they still work perfectly fine. I was making pages with changeable style sheets in 2000 and using (thanks to the Intermediate CSS course I took from the HTML Writer's Guild taught by Eric Meyer) sibling and child and pseudo-selectors in 2002. Those things actually worked in Netscape (gasp, Netscape!) in 2002 before Firefox came along and enhanced the pages I used them on while those who used IE still had a perfectly good page. When I check those pages now in 2009 they still work just fine and there is now greater browser support. I'd go into greater detail if I weren't rushing out the door right now. There are some things I like about tabled layouts over CSS layouts but I never do tabled layouts anymore. ______________________________________________________________________ css-discuss [[email protected]] 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/
