RE: [WSG] CSS vs tables - the untitled posts

[Mike Pepper]

Title: Message

And then the bloody this collapses erratically! I nearly went bald trying to find a resolution to this. I spend a couple of solid days examining options. Had a few CSS techies up for the challenge and we couldn't get it to render properly.

 

I've been with the negative flanking columns but it seemed that one resolution clobbered another aspect. In truth, I should have documented the working procedure but it got to the stage where you have literally dozens of backups (and way to much espresso).

 

I may revisit it again but I've had 3 shots at it with various guys examining it. It's quite possible to achieve the 'cool' style but implementing the other two proved a pig. If I dropped them, I could do it. But that's again surrendering to limitations of pure CSS.

 

However, I am open to options. I'm not a sparkling CSS developer and have been in the game for only 8 months or so. There are far more knowledgeable guys around. I'm just loath to go down the road of nested divs and fudges to get something to work which can be achieved more practicably with a simple framing table.

 

Mike

-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]On Behalf Of Jamie Mason
Sent: 28 May 2004 16:21
To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]'
Subject: RE: [WSG] CSS vs tables - the untitled posts

Hi,

You could absolutely position the right hand column, put a right margin on the centre column of the width of the right column and have that and the left column fluid.

 

That would work, right?

 

Apologies again for my previous posts tone.

 

 

Jamie Mason: Design

 

-----Original Message-----
From: Mike Pepper [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 28 May 2004 16:07
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: [WSG] CSS vs tables - the untitled posts

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 Pepper

Hi,
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