No,
Jamie, not a joke.
As I
said in an earlier post, it's possible to achieve almost anything with CSS but
at what cost in time and nested divs to achieve the same result. And it's not a
'standard' 3 column layout; the right is fixed to maximise the text area
available to the other two columns. Also, once you switch to either of the other
two stylesheets you have to deal with breaking and intermittent rendering or
borders.
If I
make all columns fluid and eliminate borders it's a piece of cake to develop for
all browsers with minimal hacks. Another work-around is to use relative layered
placement. That does the job.
Sure,
I can run a 3 column layout if I compromise on the visual aspect, in other
words, if I change the design. But I'm then admitting the shortcomings of CSS
have forced development within constraints of what CSS can achieve rather than
accepting these limitations and digging out the trusty old table spanner
from the toolbox.
Jamie,
I know you mean no offence but that was a decent courtesy we all sometimes
forget to add which assures clean, forthright and polite
dialogue.
Thanks, mate.
Mike
-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]On Behalf Of Jamie Mason
Sent: 28 May 2004 15:28
To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]'
Subject: RE: [WSG] CSS vs tables - the untitled posts"Ok, Rimantas, replicate http://seowebsitepromotion.com without tables and without hacks."
- Mike PepperHi,
I don't want to lower the tone, but was that comment a joke or were you serious? Your site is a standard 3 column layout, it's perfectly possible to build that in CSS-P.No offence meant,
Jamie Mason: Design
