Wow, that is a disturbing article! Reminds me of 6 months ago when there was a CSS backlash and quite a few bloggers were bagging CSS. The joke at the time was:
Question: What furniture do CSS fanatics have in their houses? Answer: Chairs... But no tables! There are a lot of harsh statements made in this article. Without responding to every point (though it is very tempting), here is a few quick overall responses: 1. Sites built to web standards do not have to be full-CSS. While it is a great goal, it is not essential. You can use hybrid layouts with a basic table grids to hold the elements in place and all other presentation driven by CSS. 2. A lot of anti-css comment comes from people who have tried it and been burned. There ARE issues with CSS - mainly its lack of consistent support across browsers and its lack of support by other devices. However, these people often forget that the same time was spent perfecting table-based layouts in the early days. When I began doing table-based layouts 8 years ago, I spent a long time learning how to get pages to appear exactly how I wanted them too. It was hard and it was frustrating! 3. Rose, Peter and I have built over 25 full CSS sites now. We are still learning about CSS on every site (I want to redo half of them right now!). The first few sites took much longer to produce than a table-based site would have, as we struggled with CSS. However, once we got over the initial learning curve things have become much easier. There is absolutely no doubt that our design time, development/production time and maintenance time has dropped radically since we moved to full CSS. Apologies for the rave! Russ > Maybe already posted(?): > http://www.decloak.com/Products/Dreamweaver/NestedTemplates/TablesOrLayers.asp> x > > (found at saila.com) > > /Anton ***************************************************** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ *****************************************************
