Bill Braun said: >Setting aside the moral implications, having made a transition from a >site built completely around tables to one based on <div>, the latter, >in my experience and opinion, takes much better advantage of CSS. I have >been able to do everything using <div> as I did using <table>, in a much >more flexible manner, and, again in my opinion, with a slight edge in >favor of design aesthetics.
Based on "divs"? Hello? What about "based on structural semantic markup and CSS-layout techniques"? You guys - Bill, Claude - sound like you have contracted divitis* in your migration to CSS-layout techniques. Better find a cure. "Wiktionary definition of divitis" <http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/divitis> Jeffery Zeldman quote on "divitis" with code example <http://adam.kahtava.com/journal/2009/07/15/cronic-divitis-and-classitis- what-is-it/> The cure is IMHO semantic markup methods. Robert Nyman has a nice brief introduction: "Explaining Semantic Mark-Up" <http://robertnyman.com/2007/10/29/explaining-semantic-mark-up/> /MB "Content precedes design. Design in the absence of content is not design, it's decoration." -- Jeffrey Zeldman <http://twitter.com/zeldman/statuses/804159148> ______________________________________________________________________ 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/
