On 1/3/06, Frank W. Zammetti <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I would even go so far as to ask, aside from the obvious benefit of being > able to change the look and feel of a site by pointing to a new > stylesheet, what is the problem with table-based layouts? Is the easy > swapping of stylesheets the only real reason everyone is on the CSS > bandwagon? I suppose limited browsers like cell phones probably don't do > so well with tables, especially when they are numerous and highly nested > and such, but is the CSS support really up-to-snuff on those devices > enough to warrant full CSS designs?
Limited browsers should not try to interpret CSS instructions they do not understand. In this case the structural elements will be shown one by one, in the order. CSS is also great for creating a different stylesheet for printing because you usually don't want to print out a whole table with navigation, ads and other junk. I think that transitional design with a big table with two or three big cells works reasonably well. I am not a pro in CSS (yet), but I was sold on proper structural XHTML more than a year ago. Sadly, my own pages are not as good as I want them to be. Michael. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
