Stevio said: > What is wrong with using a simple 1 row 2 column table to layout a web > page when using DIVs and CSS requires hacks and JavaScript to work in > the way required? > > Why is using CSS in this case the better of two evils? Surely we are > abusing CSS in just the same way we are abusing tables?
The only reason CSS is being 'abused' is that we have created an expectation of how a design will *visually* render in a browser. This expectation is informed by, and table-based layouts rely upon, our understanding of real world media such as magazines and newspapers. Table's used for layout purposes only make sense in the visual dimension of the design, but may impact upon the meaning of the content. The advantage of putting 'hacks' in the CSS layer is that generally they do not affect the meaning of the content. The whole concept of using tables for layout is flawed for a number of reasons. It makes assumptions about the type of device being used to render the page, the abilities of the person viewing it, adds unneccessary weight to the design, is harder to update, and directly interferes with the content. I disagree with your point about CSS based layouts taking longer than table based ones, although I concede that there is a steep learning curve when making the transition from tables-based layout. It's not that CSS is hard, it's that the implementation is buggy in a lot of browsers. There is a lot of knowledge to acquire in order to successfully implement a design where content, presentation and behavior are seperated. To answer your question: Tables are for tabular data. period. Using them for layout is a bit like making up everything in <p> tags. kind regards Terrence Wood. ****************************************************** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list & getting help ******************************************************
