 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
http://tinyurl.com/37c5uq
Without the charset override, it doesn't even let me validate it.
FWIW, looks OK on IE6.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Rune escribió:
> Now I've reverted to using some good old tables
*vomits*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Nicolas Alvarez" wrote:
>> Now I've reverted to using some good old tables
>
> *vomits*
Yeah, I know that many people feel like that.
Them: Don't use tables for layout purposes!
Me: Okay, so what do I do instead to get the same result?
Them: Use this more complicated method here with lots of nested divs, then
apply this long list of browser-specific hacks in order to make it work in
all major browsers.
Me: And how exactly is that better than using a simpler table approach that
works exactly as expected, is consistent across browsers, and is equally
user-friendly?
Them: Because using tables is baaaad...!
Seriously, if you can show me a way that works equally well as my table
approach without raising the complexity a lot, I'd be very interested. It's
not like I haven't tried.
Rune
--
http://runevision.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Nicolas Alvarez" wrote:
> http://tinyurl.com/37c5uq
>
> Without the charset override, it doesn't even let me validate it.
I fixed the most and now only the H2 errors are left. I have no idea what
they mean.
> FWIW, looks OK on IE6.
:)
Rune
--
http://runevision.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Rune wrote:
> Seriously, if you can show me a way that works equally well as my table
> approach without raising the complexity a lot, I'd be very interested. It's
> not like I haven't tried.
I was very impressed by this tutorial, but then I don't write web apps
other than ugly ones. You might bet some good out of it.
http://www.sitepoint.com/article/tables-vs-css
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
It's not feature creep if you put it
at the end and adjust the release date.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Rune escribió:
> Seriously, if you can show me a way that works equally well as my table
> approach without raising the complexity a lot, I'd be very interested. It's
> not like I haven't tried.
From the explanation of the acid2 test: "Tables for layout aren't bad.
What is bad is using table *markup*". However, display:table,
display:table-cell, etc. aren't supported by any released version of
IE... Otherwise they would be an interesting one.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Rune escribió:
> "Nicolas Alvarez" wrote:
>> http://tinyurl.com/37c5uq
>>
>> Without the charset override, it doesn't even let me validate it.
>
> I fixed the most and now only the H2 errors are left. I have no idea what
> they mean.
<a> can only contain inline elements, and <h2> is a block element; so
<a><h2></h2></a> isn't allowed.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Nicolas Alvarez" wrote:
>> Seriously, if you can show me a way that works equally well as my table
>> approach without raising the complexity a lot, I'd be very interested.
>> It's not like I haven't tried.
>
> From the explanation of the acid2 test: "Tables for layout aren't bad.
> What is bad is using table *markup*".
The solutions I have seen for creating flexible rounded boxes without tables
require just as much markup, only in div form instead of in table form.
The rounded boxes really are the main problem here. I just couldn't find a
way to create rounded boxes without tables that
- Supported transparent PNGs
- Worked even in IE 6 (including transparency)
- Was flexible in width and height
Rune
--
http://runevision.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Nicolas Alvarez" wrote:
>> I fixed the most and now only the H2 errors are left. I have no idea what
>> they mean.
>
> <a> can only contain inline elements, and <h2> is a block element; so
> <a><h2></h2></a> isn't allowed.
Hmm, so I have to replace the h2 with span and loose that semantic
information. Not good...
Oh well, the page validates now.
Rune
--
http://runevision.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Rune <aut### [at] runevision com> wrote:
> Them: Don't use tables for layout purposes!
From the dawn of the WWW "they" have punctuated that HTML should not
be used for layout, only for content, that the layout should be separated
from the content. One argument which has always been given is that you
don't know the screen size of the user, and that some users might want
to view the page in a small hand-held device.
"They" were right. Hand-held devices capable of viewing web pages are
becoming more and more popular every day (cellphones, handheld game
consoles...) and people are browsing the WWW with them more and more
(and suffering from all those "this site requires at least a 800x600
resolution" sites).
People are still not paying attention. They still tell themselves that
nobody *really* browses the internet with a cellphone.
(What I find puzzling is that "they" preached separation of content
and layout from the dawn of the WWW, yet "they" hate CSS, which is exactly
what they wanted: Total separation of content and layout. I never really
understood why. It's exactly what they wanted. But no.)
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
