Re: [WSG] ultimate noob question.... is table-less layout meaning literally?
http://www.csszengarden.com/ http://www.meyerweb.com/eric/css/edge/complexspiral/demo.html http://www.meyerweb.com/eric/css/edge/index.html -- Neerav Bhatt http://www.bhatt.id.au Web Development IT consultancy Mobile: +61 (0)403 8000 27 http://www.bhatt.id.au/blog/ - Ramblings Thoughts http://www.bookcrossing.com/mybookshelf/neerav [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 've got into the habit of checking the source on many webpages I come across, and i've yet to find one with complex design which is without using tables for layout. Duncan ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ Proud presenters of Web Essentials 04 http://we04.com/ Web standards, accessibility, inspiration, knowledge To be held in Sydney, September 30 and October 1, 2004 See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
RE: [WSG] ultimate noob question.... is table-less layout meaning literally?
What about http://www.sitepoint.com ? That's as complicated a structure as any I've seen, and almost completely table-less. mike foskett http://www.webSemantics.co.uk/ -Original Message- From: Neerav [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 16 August 2004 12:24 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [WSG] ultimate noob question is table-less layout meaning literally? http://www.csszengarden.com/ http://www.meyerweb.com/eric/css/edge/complexspiral/demo.html http://www.meyerweb.com/eric/css/edge/index.html -- Neerav Bhatt http://www.bhatt.id.au Web Development IT consultancy Mobile: +61 (0)403 8000 27 http://www.bhatt.id.au/blog/ - Ramblings Thoughts http://www.bookcrossing.com/mybookshelf/neerav [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 've got into the habit of checking the source on many webpages I come across, and i've yet to find one with complex design which is without using tables for layout. Duncan ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ Proud presenters of Web Essentials 04 http://we04.com/ Web standards, accessibility, inspiration, knowledge To be held in Sydney, September 30 and October 1, 2004 See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help ** ** This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify the system manager. This footnote also confirms that this email message has been swept by MIMEsweeper for the presence of computer viruses. www.mimesweeper.com ** ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ Proud presenters of Web Essentials 04 http://we04.com/ Web standards, accessibility, inspiration, knowledge To be held in Sydney, September 30 and October 1, 2004 See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] ultimate noob question.... is table-less layout meaning literally?
Hi, Duncan.
All the sites I design are based on CSS-driven layouts; however, I still use
tables for presenting tabulated data (naturally). Even the most hardcore CSS
junkie will admit that there are some table-based layouts that cannot be
replicated using just CSS. The usual way to get around this problem is to
compromise the layout, but a client may insist on a certain functionality
that can only be achieved with tables at the moment.
Deep nesting is definitely a problem, because it produces a LOT of wasteful,
presentational markup that is hard to immediately comprehend. Deeply-nested
DIVs are just as bad though, so don't fall out of the frying pan into the
fire.
Simon Jessey
--
mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
web : http://jessey.net/blog/
work: http://keystonewebsites.com/
- Original Message -
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [WSG] ultimate noob question is table-less layout meaning
literally?
Thing I have trouble getting my head round is the term table-less
layout. I have started doing entirely CSS based design where I add no
design info to the XHTML, and i've had great success, but I've not been
able to abandon the use of tables entirely. This is primarily because
with
tables the row height is always uniform and lush edges (e.g. shadowing)
can
be easily recreated using empty rows/columns with the correct class.
Also I don't understand where deeply nested tables = too deep. For one
of my sites I have a 3x3 table for the layout. The outer cells make up
the
frame of the site, all done using td{background: and then extra tables in
the middle-left (menu) and middle-center (content) cells again using 3x3s
to give a border (or at least 1x3s with fixed width). Is this bad or is
this acceptable?
**
The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/
Proud presenters of Web Essentials 04 http://we04.com/
Web standards, accessibility, inspiration, knowledge
To be held in Sydney, September 30 and October 1, 2004
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list getting help
**
Re: [WSG] ultimate noob question.... is table-less layout meaning literally?
Duncan, You do need to get your head around this or you remain trapped in the old mindset, which mixes content and appearance. A table, unless it holds tabular data, has no semantic meaning. Especially if you are using nested components. You are including it in your HTML only for the purpose of holding together your design, and this is not a defensible approach, even if it works. The point of a table-less design is to remove the appearance code of a website from the HTML, and to give meaning to everything that remains. Divide the HTML into 'boxes' that are named according to their function (header, navigation, sub-navigation, main content etc), then control the position and contents of each of those boxes with CSS. And the point of doing this is to ensure that the HTML can be repurposed for different devices (print, braille, handheld, etc) without having to be rewritten. That's the vision, anyway. Neerav and others have posted some inspirational links demonstrating the power of pure CSS to create some extraordinary layouts. -Hugh Todd Thing I have trouble getting my head round is the term table-less layout. ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ Proud presenters of Web Essentials 04 http://we04.com/ Web standards, accessibility, inspiration, knowledge To be held in Sydney, September 30 and October 1, 2004 See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] ultimate noob question.... is table-less layout meaning literally? i see it does.
At 21:24 16/08/2004 +1000, you wrote: http://www.csszengarden.com/ much inspiration here. thanks Neerav. It's exactly what i needed. and thanks to everyone elses comments. Feel a lot more confident about it now. Duncan ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ Proud presenters of Web Essentials 04 http://we04.com/ Web standards, accessibility, inspiration, knowledge To be held in Sydney, September 30 and October 1, 2004 See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
RE: [WSG] ultimate noob question.... is table-less layout meaning literally?
What about http://www.sitepoint.com ? That's as complicated a structure as any I've seen, and almost completely table-less. That's a particularly good example, because it uses no tables to lay out the page, but right at the bottom where they've got a list of data, best displayed using rows and columns, then they *have* used a table. It's almost completely table-less because some of the data is table data. ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ Proud presenters of Web Essentials 04 http://we04.com/ Web standards, accessibility, inspiration, knowledge To be held in Sydney, September 30 and October 1, 2004 See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] ultimate noob question.... is table-less layout meaning literally?
Table-less just means tables aren't used for layout. When used to contain tabular data, that's not layout, that's containing data that SHOULD be in a table. JMHO. Leslie Riggs What about http://www.sitepoint.com ? That's as complicated a structure as any I've seen, and almost completely table-less. That's a particularly good example, because it uses no tables to lay out the page, but right at the bottom where they've got a list of data, best displayed using rows and columns, then they *have* used a table. It's almost completely table-less because some of the data is table data. ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ Proud presenters of Web Essentials 04 http://we04.com/ Web standards, accessibility, inspiration, knowledge To be held in Sydney, September 30 and October 1, 2004 See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
