On Sun, May 17, 2009 at 11:20:19PM +0100, Nathan Rixham wrote:

> Paul M Foster wrote:
>> On Sun, May 17, 2009 at 08:40:33PM +0100, Nathan Rixham wrote:
>>> tedd wrote:
>>>> At 11:28 PM +0100 5/15/09, Nathan Rixham wrote:
>>>>> tedd wrote:
>>>>>> However, there are occasions such as in a calendar where not using a
>>>>>> table would be more than difficult. I haven't received a decree yet
>>>>>> as to IF that would be considered column data or not.
>>>>> I'm gonna differ on this one, when you simply float each calender item
>>>>> to the left you're pretty much done, in many cases i find it easier
>>>>> than tables.
>>>> Okay -- so you find them easier to use for this purpose.
>>>> This is my little php calendar (not all the code is mine):
>>>> http://php1.net/my-php-calendar/
>>>> and I use tables.
>>>> I would not want to redo this script using pure css, but I probably will
>>>> do it at some point. We all have investments into our code.
>>>> Do you have a css calendar to show?
>>> hi tedd,
>>> didn't have one to hand so quickly knocked up a basic one here:
>>> http://programphp.com/Calendar/
>>> all sizes etc are in em so it'll fully resize - you'll see in the source
>>> anyways - all css.
>>> have to say it's not great but it's just a quick demo to show it's more
>>> than possible.
>> It's very pretty, Nathan. *Except* in IE6, which is what probably most
>> of the world is using. In IE6, the day labels are lined up one on top of
>> each other, and there are no date "cells" at all. No numbers, no
>> nothing.
>> And therein lies the reason why people use tables.
>> Paul
> and if every site a user visited was screwed in IE6 because the
> developers had made it without tables, maybe they'd all upgrade to
> something newer.

No, they'd simply go elsewhere for their product/service/information.
Moreover, they don't know that the site is goofy because of their
browsers' lack of support for CSS. In fact, the vast majority of them
wouldn't even know something called "CSS" exists.

And by the way, this attitude of "My code is fine; your browser sucks;
upgrade" can be the worst kind of arrogance, and people react to it
exactly as though it were arrogance. There used to be the same kind of
attitude with regard to screen resolution. 640x480 was just so "80s",
and *all* the latest monitors supported 1280x1024 or whatever. So we
design for 1280x1024 and screw those Luddite users. I would agree if
someone's using Netscape 4; you'd have to kindly break it to them that
they really should upgrade. But beyond that, it gets gray.

Telling a user to upgrade his browser because it won't display your way
kewl website properly is like telling someone it's time to trade in
their car. The car still runs fine, and gets them from point A to point
B without a lot of maintenance issues. Why should they trade it in? And
they'll react with resentment. The analogy isn't perfect. Computer/web
technology moves a lot faster than car technology. But there are
probably still sites out there which will sell them the doodad they want
without them having to upgrade their browser. Why stay with you?

To be honest, I think the reason the site didn't paint properly is
because you put the "content" of the cells (the outline numbering) in
the CSS. If you had inserted content for each cell into the actual HTML,
it might have painted fine. Nonetheless...


Paul M. Foster

PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/)
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php

Reply via email to