Thomas Livingston wrote:
The whole basis to my point is that in our little virtual situation,
it's too late. The client saw the design. the client wants the design
he saw. If you could only do it with a table, you'd say no and/or
walk.
Just or the record, / I / wouldn't walk; I'd do what
ADMIN THREAD CLOSED
Reasons for closing: The CSS driven thread has gone on far too long and
has been dangerously close to flame-wars on several occasions. Time to move
on please.
Please do not reply to this post or continue this thread. If you have a
comment or an issue with the closing of this
Terrence.
Plus I don't want to get into the quirks of clients in this
thread, I'd like to concentrate on finding a solution to a real
problem that is as reliable (browser-wise) and as easy to
implement as it is with a table,
Sure... clients who needs them? But see the real problem is
Why do you assume I didn't? Its this type of flawed assumptions that
has caused this thread to wander all over the landscape without
arriving at a solution to the problem at hand.
And over the last few months, the list has devolved into unending threads
that serve nothing wrt web standards.
Christian,
Do these table layouts go in your portfolio?
Since you asked. I have my very first site in my portfolio and it is
a nested table/spacer gif monster.
But except for you guys, I doubt if anyone has ever done a view
source on the site.
Do these clients
recommend you to others
On 17 Dec 2005, at 9:04 PM, Bob Schwartz wrote:
Do you think you are being helpful? Believe me, you're not.
I think I made it pretty clear that I was having a general rant, not
talking directly to you Bob. I was just using your situation as a
jumping off point.
On 17 Dec 2005, at 9:06 AM,
Terrence,
Obviously you haven't found this thread helpful, but others have.
Oddly enough I have, though the (seems to be) answer came in off list.
If after doing some testing, the solution does indeed work as I need
it to, I will post it for those who remember what the original
question
No can do Bob. I showed you the solution.
End of story: solution, choices made, move on :)
Yes Sir. Thank you Sir. I will just fold my table and slink away.
It's been a honor being in your illustrious presence.
I will return when I feel more worthy .
bob
On Dec 15, 2005, at 6:32 PM, Terrence Wood wrote:
How can you be stuck without a choice? Would you not at least alert
them
(clients or peers) to the fact that a better solution may exist?
All good points sir.
What I took from your original post was this (maybe I was just off
base
On 15 Dec 2005, at 9:07 PM, Bob Schwartz wrote:
For the record: I am past 1998 in my designs, but as I mentioned
earlier, I don't do designs from 1998 because I want to, I have some
clients who want that look.
Like I said, it was not personal, and I didn't see you comment earlier
- but
On Dec 16, 2005, at 3:06 PM, Terrence Wood wrote:
My apologies, I never realised the visual design was non-negotiable.
If you have the complete and total luxury of doing whatever the heck
you want no matter what your clients want or ask for, then you are a
lucky man indeed.
-
Tom
On 17 Dec 2005, at 5:15 AM, Thomas Livingston wrote:
A clients wants a design. And you want developers, etc. to tell
clients 'no, you shouldn't do that because the only way to achieve
that design is to use tables, and tables are bad so how about you go
with a similar design but without a, b,
On 17 Dec 2005, at 9:21 AM, Thomas Livingston wrote:
If you have the complete and total luxury of doing whatever the heck
you want no matter what your clients want or ask for, then you are a
lucky man indeed.
I work with constraints in a competitive environment just like everyone
else
On Dec 16, 2005, at 3:42 PM, Terrence Wood wrote:
No, I don't want you to tell them the technical reason's of why one
design is better than another.
Yes, you do.
The whole basis to my point is that in our little virtual situation,
it's too late. The client saw the design. the client
On 12/16/05, Thomas Livingston [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Dec 16, 2005, at 3:06 PM, Terrence Wood wrote:
My apologies, I never realised the visual design was non-negotiable.
If you have the complete and total luxury of doing whatever the heck
you want no matter what your clients want or
On Dec 16, 2005, at 4:30 PM, Christian Montoya wrote:
My thinking is that if I ever had to do one of these sites, I would
not put it in my portfolio.
Oops. My mistake. I accidentally wandered in to the elitist
teachers' lounge. I'll just get back out into the hall where I belong.
Do
On 12/16/05, Thomas Livingston wrote:
If I have to use a table now, it it _not_ going to be a horrible retro
nested mess. It's to achieve something I can't achieve otherwise.
Hi Tom - I don't mean this as a sarcastic question or anything. I fully
admit I may have missed this if it was already
Thomas Livingston said:
On Dec 16, 2005, at 3:42 PM, Terrence Wood wrote:
No, I don't want you to tell them the technical reason's of why one
design is better than another.
Yes, you do.
Did you not read the rest of the paragraph above Tom? I thought it was
quite clear, but I'll put it
The idea that table based designs look like something from 1998 is
ridiculous. I've seen a lot excellent visual design which is implemented
in table form (some well others not so well). On the other hand some of
what passes for design on this list may be great in terms of standards
and
Nigel said:
The idea that table based designs look like something from 1998 is
ridiculous.
Yes, it is, but fortunately no-one here made that claim. It's a figurative
term, not literal. We're not talking about a specific look (like techno,
goth, post-postmodern, deconstructed), rather a design
On 12/16/05, Duckworth, Nigel [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The idea that table based designs look like something from 1998 is
ridiculous.
You are generalizing what was a very specific comment. What we call a
1998 design is 2 or 3 columns, equal height, every column a different
color. The key is the
Christian Montoya:
What we call a 1998 design is 2 or 3 columns, equal height, every
column a different color. The key is the columns being different
colors. It was very typical in 1998, and looks retro now. Many
of us are just tired of seeing it.
Not sure of your point, though the
Terrence said:
We're not talking about a specific look (like techno, goth,
post-postmodern,
deconstructed), rather a design pattern: a head/3 column/foot table
layout
with multicolored columns
Yes, I think I get that, I just disagree with the implication that table
based designs are such in
Stuart,
Thanks for the example, but while it displays according to my
example, it's not what I'm looking for. (I guess my example assumed
too much intuition as to what I was trying to obtain).
Here's where your example fails (and perhaps better illustrates the
problem I'm trying to
2005/12/15, Bob Schwartz [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
...
If it can't be done,
It can be done, and it has be done hundreds of times (in real world too):
take a look at csszengarden.com, or sites featured in cssvault.com,
stylegala.com, etc.
I'd like to see a humble
admission from the non-table people
Rimantas,
Seems like you are not looking for solution, but for simple
encouragament
to stick with tables. Ok, if the only solution you are going to
accept is table,
Is there anything to gain in these discussions by you always being so
polemic
If you have nothing except snide remarks to
Bob Schwartz wrote:
In reality I have evidently hit upon a problem with pure CSS. The
fact that it may not be a problem for those who do not have clients
asking for a certian site design is irrelavent. I do and am seeking a
way to satisfy them and do pure (in the spirit of this group) CSS
at
On 12/15/05, Bob Schwartz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In reality I have evidently hit upon a problem with pure CSS. The
fact that it may not be a problem for those who do not have clients
asking for a certian site design is irrelavent. I do and am seeking a
way to satisfy them and do pure (in the
Bob Schwartz said:
Just because I've stated that if a solution (P7 javascript not
withstanding) does not exist that does not involve a table, you non-
table people should at least admit it.
I'm not aware of 'non-table people' making a claim that CSS can solve
every design problem. Was that
On Dec 15, 2005, at 4:22 PM, Terrence Wood wrote:
encouraging your clients to look to other
design solutions that don't reply on the use of tables for layout
This is just completely unrealistic.
First, don't submit a design that you can't build. Otherwise, if you
are not the designer, and
Thomas Livingston said:
On Dec 15, 2005, at 4:22 PM, Terrence Wood wrote:
encouraging your clients to look to other
design solutions that don't reply on the use of tables for layout
This is just completely unrealistic.
What It's unrealistic to advise your clients? Not in my world, my
Al,
Since, my whole point has been that using a simple layout table, as
opposed to a nested monstrosity, can sometimes be a good thing
I'm glad you are championing my original cause, which somehow got way
off course in the thread.
Not only can a simple table be a good thing, it is still
Bob Schwartz wrote:
I had hoped for some real solutions when I posted my original two
cents, but none came. I can only conclude there are none, yet.
I did think more than Rimantas would pop-up with a quick answer for your
question, Bob:
Which browser can correctly render the
Bob Schwartz said:
I had hoped for some real solutions when I posted my original two
cents, but none came. I can only conclude there are none, yet.
Here's an easy solution: don't create designs that look like they're from
1998 (e.g the 2-col cnet yellow stripe and it's ilk)... there are so
Christian,
On 12/12/05, Bob Schwartz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm not trying to center, the issue is height and more correctly
height which expands to fit content of nested divs and probably even
more correctly a box with columns in it which expands all columns to
be equal in height to the one
Given a choice of one table or hacks to do what one table already
does, I'll stick with the one table.
Only so called hacks go to the presentation layer (CSS file) and table
stays in your HTML markup.
If the current specs still have height issues for divs (which it
seems they do), how can we
And still - table for layout _is_ a hack.
I'd rather have that single, easy to spot hack, which adds very
little overhead, than multiple background images and extra divs
coupled with hyroglyphics in my css file.
Yes, I know presentation belongs in the CSS.
No, I don't subscribe to Never
There is one browser with issues, not the specs.
Which browser can correctly render the following:
3 columns, no height defined and a background color different from
that of the body
in column 1 goes a 1000px high image
in column 2 goes a 750px high image
in column 3 goes a 500px high
On 12/13/05, Bob Schwartz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
There is one browser with issues, not the specs.
Which browser can correctly render the following:
3 columns, no height defined and a background color different from
that of the body
in column 1 goes a 1000px high image
in column 2 goes
I'd rather have that single, easy to spot hack, which adds very
little overhead, than multiple background images and extra divs
coupled with hyroglyphics in my css file.
Amen
**
The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See
OK, we've had this before, but here we go again. Show me an example of
centering a div vertically and horizontally on the screen, where you
don't need to know ANY sizes beforehand, don't need negative margins,
AND the result works in the viewport even when the viewport is smaller
than the
I've found this particular topic so interesting, as I've gotten an insight
into the different approaches people take towards building standards based
designs or should I say, CSS driven designs.
As we all know, there is not one perfect, fully robust, all conquering 100%
correct way to design any
As for a standards-based
page, agreeing that it is not a hard and fast rule that tables be
banned for layout, can you present some logical arguments against this
page - keeping strictly within the context of standards:
http://www.projectseven.com/csslab/zealotry/linear_basics.htm
I would
Christian Montoya wrote:
On 12/13/05, Bob Schwartz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
There is one browser with issues, not the specs.
Which browser can correctly render the following:
3 columns, no height defined and a background color different from
that of the body
...
the end result should be
I'd rather have that single, easy to spot hack, which adds very
little overhead, than multiple background images and extra divs
coupled with hyroglyphics in my css file.
Amen
So, how are you going to style your single table? Either with CSS
with all multiple background imageas and extra
On 12/13/05, Bob Schwartz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
There is one browser with issues, not the specs.
Which browser can correctly render the following:
3 columns, no height defined and a background color different from
that of the body
in column 1 goes a 1000px high image
in column 2 goes a
On 13 Dec, 2005, at 1:51 PM, Rimantas Liubertas wrote:
I'd rather have that single, easy to spot hack, which adds very
little overhead, than multiple background images and extra divs
coupled with hyroglyphics in my css file.
Amen
So, how are you going to style your single table? Either
2005/12/13, Bob Schwartz [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
There is one browser with issues, not the specs.
Which browser can correctly render the following:
...
http://rimantas.com/bits/notable.html
Opera: since version 4.
Gecko browsers: works with the oldest I have got: Mozilla Seamonkey
0.6
heretic wrote:
As for a standards-based
page, agreeing that it is not a hard and fast rule that tables be
banned for layout, can you present some logical arguments against
this page - keeping strictly within the context of standards:
http://www.projectseven.com/csslab/zealotry/linear_basics.htm
Try it in IE Mac, you're in for a surprise.
2005/12/13, Bob Schwartz [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
There is one browser with issues, not the specs.
Which browser can correctly render the following:
...
http://rimantas.com/bits/notable.html
Opera: since version 4.
Gecko browsers: works with the
Sent: Tuesday, December 13, 2005 10:32 AM
Subject: Re: [WSG] CSS Driven?
Try it in IE Mac, you're in for a surprise.
2005/12/13, Bob Schwartz [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
There is one browser with issues, not the specs.
Which browser can correctly render the following:
...
http://rimantas.com/bits
Display: table-cell is a great tool, but its practicality will not be
meaningful for several years. While IE5 Mac is fairly irrelevant, IE5
and IE6 Windows have a long life remaining. It's a fun declaration to
play with, but serious commercial designers would be ill-advised to
depend on it at
On 12/13/05, Bob Schwartz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 12/13/05, Bob Schwartz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
in other words:
below the image in column 1, no background color shows
below the image in column 2, 250px of background color shows
below the image in column 3, 500px of background color
It depends on who the recipient of the policy doc is. One, very large,
contractor we were working with considered MUST to mean SHOULD, and
SHOULD to be IF YOU CAN BE RSED. They're government funded so no-one cared.
Stephen
heretic wrote:
I guess your assertion hinges on how one interprets
Al Sparber wrote:
In any case, we are dealing with a language (English, that is) which
produced the rule I before E except when it's not. I know, it used
to be ...before C but that's not actually true (weird isn't it).
Crazy language :)
Except it's not a rule but an aid to correct spelling.
From: Stephen Stagg [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Al Sparber wrote:
In any case, we are dealing with a language (English, that is)
which
produced the rule I before E except when it's not. I know, it
used
to be ...before C but that's not actually true (weird isn't
it).
Crazy language :)
Except it's
I take it, therefore, that none of your sites use style sheets at all
(unnecessary), they all use a serif font for body content(easier to read
long para's when in serifs) and that images are only used for
visualization aids?
Very little of what we do is determined by necessity, otherwise we
On 12/13/05, Stephen Stagg [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I take it, therefore, that none of your sites use style sheets at all
(unnecessary), they all use a serif font for body content(easier to read
long para's when in serifs) and that images are only used for
visualization aids?
Very little of
Tables are great divs are great and if you mix them it's almost twice as
good or half as bad... whatever! (I think this subject has been driven
way too hard and for x-mas I want it to run out of fuel :-) )
--
Med venlig hilsen/Best regards
Kim Kruse
-
Al Sparber wrote:
heretic wrote:
3) The table means you are tied to that specific layout for the life
of the page (or you have to modify every single page to change the
layout). You can't use CSS to switch the navigation to the other
side
or any nifty tricks like that. Of course, that might
I would pose the counter question: agreeing that it could have been
done easily enough in CSS, why use a table?
No arguments for the table? :)
Fair enough. Of course, my opinion differs in that I believe that
there is no standard mandating that a table not be used for layout.
Personally
What is the definition of a CSS driven design ?
You could say that a css-driven site is one that has all or the majority of
presentation removed from the markup and placed in CSS files.
Having said this, I googled the word driven for a definition and found that
it also meant mobs goaded by
LOL... priceless. Thank you.
Having said this, I googled the word driven for a definition and found that
it also meant mobs goaded by blind hatred
I don't know about anyone else but I often use angry mobs to control my web
pages - though it is hard to get them to exhibit blind hate.
:)
Russ
russ - maxdesign wrote:
What is the definition of a CSS driven design ?
You could say that a css-driven site is one that has all or the majority of
presentation removed from the markup and placed in CSS files.
So where's the dividing line between table based design and CSS driven ?
My
On 12/12/05, russ - maxdesign [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
What is the definition of a CSS driven design ?
You could say that a css-driven site is one that has all or the majority of
presentation removed from the markup and placed in CSS files.
Having said this, I googled the word driven for a
russ - maxdesign wrote:
I don't know about anyone else but I often use angry mobs to control my web
pages - though it is hard to get them to exhibit blind hate.
:)
Russ
Could I please request a tutorial on this method please Russ...
-
Geoff
On 12/12/05, Absalom Media [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
russ - maxdesign wrote:
What is the definition of a CSS driven design ?
You could say that a css-driven site is one that has all or the majority of
presentation removed from the markup and placed in CSS files.
So where's the dividing
A distinction needs to be made.
The html coding can be table based or tableless and in both cases the
page can be CSS driven or not.
On 12/12/05, Absalom Media [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
russ - maxdesign wrote:
What is the definition of a CSS driven design ?
You could say that a css-driven
What is the definition of a CSS driven design ?
I would suggest that a CSS driven site is one in which the look and layout
of the site is controlled by CSS, rather than by the default behaviours of
'traditional'[1] presentational elements. Changing a single CSS declaration
can theoretically
On 12/12/05, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
A distinction needs to be made.
The html coding can be table based or tableless and in both cases the
page can be CSS driven or not.
Sorry, that is wrong. A table based layout is not CSS driven. There's
a difference between driven and
From: Absalom Media [EMAIL PROTECTED]
So where's the dividing line between table based design and CSS
driven ?
My searching thus far has turned up Meyer, comments about the Zen
Garden, and a few other proponents across the Net implying or
stating
that CSS driven means pretty much all CSS
From: Christian Montoya [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Please, no more silly statements like that. This is the Web Standards
Group. To take it a step further, the html coding can never be table
based. That's hacking, not coding.
---
I hope you are
Al Sparber
From: Christian Montoya [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Please, no more silly statements like that. This is the Web Standards
Group. To take it a step further, the html coding can never be table
based. That's hacking, not coding.
---
Sorry, but I have to disagree.
Tables as well as divs, spans etc. are containers. They are both html
elements. I don't think that any standard has suppressed the table
element from html and in my dictionary, hacking is modifying a program
in an unauthorized manner. Are tables unauthorized?
I never
From: Patrick Lauke [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Al, maybe Christian's wording was a bit brusque, but looking at the
facts:
a) the standard clearly states Tables should not be used purely as a
means to layout document content
http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/struct/tables.html - this makes the use of
tables
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Are tables unauthorized?
I never said that tables are meant for design. But even by w3.org
standards they are used for displaying tabular data .
Tabular data is, of course, a completely different matter. Using tables
is of course the best, most semantic way to present that
Hi,
on Monday, December 12, 2005 at 15:01 wsg@webstandardsgroup.org wrote:
Sorry, but I have to disagree.
Tables as well as divs, spans etc. are containers. They are both html
elements. I don't think that any standard has suppressed the table
element from html and in my dictionary, hacking
From: Martin Heiden [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org
Sent: Monday, December 12, 2005 9:29 AM
Subject: Re: [WSG] CSS Driven?
Hi,
on Monday, December 12, 2005 at 15:01 wsg@webstandardsgroup.org
wrote:
Sorry, but I have to disagree.
Tables as well as divs, spans etc
2005/12/12, Al Sparber [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
...
I guess your assertion hinges on how one interprets the word should.
Perhaps I am English-challenged, but I always took should to have a
suggestive or advisory connotation, while shall or must are
obligatory :-)
...
Al Sparber
I guess your assertion hinges on how one interprets the word
should.
Perhaps I am English-challenged, but I always took should to have a
suggestive or advisory connotation, while shall or must are
obligatory :-)
http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2119.txt
3. SHOULD This word, or
But CSS is the de-facto preferred way of defining layout of (X)HTML
documents, and using tables for layout is a case of ignoring a
particular
item in the HTML spec.
Maybe I'm behind in my CSS religious training, but...
I've found the need to use one table as a base layout because I still
From: Patrick Lauke [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org
Sent: Monday, December 12, 2005 9:50 AM
Subject: RE: [WSG] CSS Driven?
Al Sparber
I guess your assertion hinges on how one interprets the word
should.
Perhaps I am English-challenged, but I always took should to have
From: Bob Schwartz [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org
Sent: Monday, December 12, 2005 10:02 AM
Subject: Re: [WSG] CSS Driven?
But CSS is the de-facto preferred way of defining layout of (X)HTML
documents, and using tables for layout is a case of ignoring a
particular
item
, no regrets (unless I'm tossed out of
the garden).
From: Bob Schwartz [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org
Sent: Monday, December 12, 2005 10:02 AM
Subject: Re: [WSG] CSS Driven?
But CSS is the de-facto preferred way of defining layout of (X)HTML
documents, and using tables for layout
Bob Schwartz
I've found the need to use one table as a base layout because
I still
cannot get a div to expand in height (no height defined) to
incompass
its nested content as a table cell does.
If your nested content is positioned absolutely, then there is
currently no plain vanilla
From: Rimantas Liubertas [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org
Sent: Monday, December 12, 2005 9:44 AM
Subject: Re: [WSG] CSS Driven?
2005/12/12, Al Sparber [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
...
I guess your assertion hinges on how one interprets the word
should.
Perhaps I am English-challenged
From: Bob Schwartz [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org
Sent: Monday, December 12, 2005 10:29 AM
Subject: Re: [WSG] CSS Driven?
Now you'll get the no javascript fanatics chiming in.
I have clients who want pages that have a box floating in the
horizontal center of the page
Thanks,
Sometime it is absolutely positioned.
Couldn't the if floated solution be considered a hack? :-}
It is starting to sound as if my reasons for using one table once-and-
awhile are still valid and that there are still some height issues
with divs.
Bob Schwartz
I've found the
@webstandardsgroup.org
Sent: Monday, December 12, 2005 10:29 AM
Subject: Re: [WSG] CSS Driven?
Now you'll get the no javascript fanatics chiming in.
I have clients who want pages that have a box floating in the
horizontal center of the page and the height of the box to vary
depending on its
Bob Schwartz
Couldn't the if floated solution be considered a hack? :-}
It is starting to sound as if my reasons for using one table
once-and-
awhile are still valid and that there are still some height issues
with divs.
If you're floating or absolutely positioning things, a table
I'm not trying to center, the issue is height and more correctly
height which expands to fit content of nested divs and probably even
more correctly a box with columns in it which expands all columns to
be equal in height to the one with the most content.
Bob Schwartz
Couldn't the if
, December 12, 2005 7:22 PM
To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org
Subject: Re: [WSG] CSS Driven?
Hi Emma,
I'd like to tackle your question. Yes, you can consider a table a container.
However, in HTML a table contains tabular data, not other tables, not
layout. HTML was designed by scientists, for whom
On 12/12/05, Emma Dobrescu [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Let's suppose you have a page that involves tabular data. You got two
versions of this page, one built with divs/spans/lists and another one built
with tables. Both versions are css enhanced.
Why would you call one css driven and the other
I'll take another stab at this, though others may disagree.
I would define CSS-driven as probably requiring external CSS file(s),
as opposed inline CSS enhancement (your term) per page. That
separates the presentation (in the CSS files) from the content
cleanly and allows the CSS file(s)
A desperate attempt to simplify:
CSS Driven: No presentational markup, no semantic markup used
improperly for presentational purposes. CSS handles all presentation.
Not CSS Driven: Lots of presentational markup, but CSS for font sizes
and colors.
I guess your assertion hinges on how one interprets the word should.
Perhaps I am English-challenged, but I always took should to have a
suggestive or advisory connotation, while shall or must are
obligatory :-)
One quick comment on this... I always write must in draft policy
documents; but
Al Sparber wrote:
I do agree that English is a crazy language - but that's as far as I go
:-) The gent from Harvard provide the link to the W3C's definition of
should, which seems to jive with mine. As for a standards-based page,
agreeing that it is not a hard and fast rule that tables be
Could CSS be used to display that two-column table layout as a single
column? Say. for small screen devices like PDA's or XDA's? Seems to be
a flaw of table-based layouts and crosses platform-independence off the
list...
correct me if I'm wrong (I usually am)...
Regards,
Miles.
As for a
G'day
Miles Tillinger wrote:
Could CSS be used to display that two-column table layout as a single
column?
td { display:block; }
Works in Firefox and Opera (Windows).
Regards
--
Bert Doorn, Better Web Design
http://www.betterwebdesign.com.au/
Fast-loading, user-friendly websites
On 12/13/05, Miles Tillinger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Could CSS be used to display that two-column table layout as a single
column? Say. for small screen devices like PDA's or XDA's? Seems to be
a flaw of table-based layouts and crosses platform-independence off the
list...
correct me if
100 matches
Mail list logo
