HTML Table
- Started
- Last post
- 48 Responses
- moth0
but bugger it.
I think i might go to pub standards and get drunk.
- moth0
Guh.... but you're still missing the point Raf.
Tables never were, or never will be for layout. All the CSS in the world doesn't change that.
I guess the real debate here should be correct XHTML markup - not the "issues" with CSS.
- rafalski0
Moth, Moth, Moth..
Tables had functionality a lot of developers miss, but most understand using them for layout is wrong structurally. We can live with tables gone. No sweat.
You make it sound like CSS was sent by gods and anyone who thinks its imperfect is a weekend coder who just doesn't get it.
Point is, CSS flaws are well observed, known and discussed to death. Most blind CSS zealots blame browsers and keep worshipping the CSS, deeming all critics amateurs. Actually, while browsers are among the culprits, the biggest problems lie within CSS itself, browser fuckups just conveniently help to cover that.
Saying that if someone has problem with CSS they need to learn the craft doesn't solve the problem. We all have been coding "proper" CSS for long. We're doing it right. That's not the issue. The more we learn, the more we see how wrong parts of CSS are. We know our tools, we just know they could be easily improved.
Some say, "if these flaws had been so obvious, wouldn't they've been fixed by now?". This is how it works, isn't it? You update the specs, then the software, people install it and everybody's happy. Right? No, it doesn't work like that with browsers.
Well, first of all, browsers, like nothing else in the industry are characterized by something I could call for our use here "browser inertia". Updating a browser's rendering mode is a risky task. Ie. a million pages will display wrong if your updated browser suddenly starts displaying something right. That's a huge risk. Then there is browser adoption time and it is terrifyingly slow. It takes years and years for people to install current browsers. That's why advancements in this field are so slow.
When CSS2 came out and 'good' browsers started adopting them, CSS shortcomings became obvious to many (despite widespread acclaim). But it was too late for a change. IE ruled then and updating Standards could result in their rejection. Bear in mind that it was the time of browser wars and Standards' status was still fragile. It was thin ice back then. It was too late for updates. Specs had been published, browsers were being released and installed with hope to gain some market share.
Things are different now, but this strangely doesn't change much. CSS is king and it's even harder to improve these days. People have learned their workarounds, a whole generation of developers learned CSS the hard way and think it must be a result of years of scrutinized evolution and is what it is supposed to be. "How can it be wrong if it's so good?". That's why it will not change too soon.
On top of it all, work on extending the tools got dog slow. CSS3 draft gets old and still is a draft only. Nobody wants to develop the glorious XHTML and we're going back to HTML (version 5 now being worked on).
Just a quick example of what is fucked up in CSS and where it came from. Take the box model. The one we have now is a result of a political decision, rather than technical or practical one. Soon it became clear that the IE5 box model was more logical, practical, efficient. This was even admitted by CSS naz.. err.. gurus in their bestseller CSS worship books. It was wrong though, because it was Microsoft's.
To back my words, despite the good IE5 box model being dead now, its revival is part of the CSS3 draft:
http://www.w3.org/TR/css3-ui/#bo…
http://www.xs4all.nl/~ppk/css2te…
- skt0
I protested against the Forestry Commission once. Ended up on the Money Program.
True story.
- kelpie0
Personally, I'm still in a huff that browser developers never consulted me about whether the browser should be able to release smells as well as display visuals. Would really help me get that "pine fresh" feeel on this Forestry Commission website I'm designing.
- skt0
- Mojo0
- johnnnnyh0
"creating web pages isnt just about how easy it is for the designers to adapt flats to html pages" -
The point I'm making is that while css is great in 9 out of 10 instances it is not 100% perfect. This would be fine except when one finds that there are things which could be done which now can't be done quite as efficiently (I use this word instead of easily as I'm not trying to short cut anything here).
And before anyone gets too worked up over this I never use tables for layout, but I do accept that there were things I used to do with a table that are now more challenging (three column layouts springs to mind for example which expand but do not crash back in on one another).
ASIDE --- I'm actually refreshed by having a real design/mark-up discussion on here by the way, rather than the usual boob and what's your favourite chat up line threads.
- maximillion_0
not sure why yr using quote marks as that's not a quote and you also seem to be agreeing with something you wrote in your own thread.
my point wasnt about developers but designers adapting to CSS & HTML
- it is a quote - see moth above. I never said this!!johnnnnyh
- johnnnnyh0
"There is a HUGE divide between properly trained developers and "developers". - absolutely agree 100% with this and rest of your point. I think it's worrying on every level too. Personally, because one realises one's faults and professionally becuase despite the gulf in skill levels there's still people out there making a living despite their skill set.
- maximillion_0
johnnny,
you can style table elements with CSS as well as semantic markup, the problem is that creating web pages isnt just about how easy it is for the designers to adapt flats to html pages, there's a whole host of other apects involved and reasons to use XHTML and CSS. trying to justify the use of tables over css with this argument just doesnt cut it, separating design from content has big benefits over the use of tables.there are lots of users who posts threads on here (more so a few years ago when more ppl made the transition) and its generally visual designers who post them and the reasons are that they dont understand how to use the new tools (CSS & XHTML) more often than not these ppl are championing CSS months later after they invested their time in learning to use the technology
- moth0
DAMN. Jonny. Tables were NEVER meant for layout. Null and Void. Next.
- moth0
I've been working with a pretty damn good ruby developer over the last few months, and the faults in my own skills in development have been getting less and less. There is a HUGE divide between properly trained developers and "developers". I can only hope I continue to learn from this guy. Most of my programmatic errors are simply down to the way I think. If you have a computer science degree, you'll instinctively understand why HTML and CSS is how it is.
Designers turned web-developers (like me) are actually starting to fill me with dread.
Most people here, and myself included, really are riding the coat tails of giants.
- johnnnnyh0
"It's about small and not justified by the general idea decisions CSS creators made that caused developers lots of pain"
I agree with this too, rafalski. It's not just about tables, although they in some ways illustrate part of the point.
- rafalski0
Moth, CSS deals with presentation of structured html data - as you say.
What I'm saying, it could've been better and more usable without interfering with xml semantics. Forget tables for a while, fuck the tables actually. It's about small and not justified by the general idea decisions CSS creators made that caused developers lots of pain in the ass and in some cases were strictly political - anti-Microsoft, to be precise.
- johnnnnyh0
So what you're saying, moth, is we're all wrong because we see and note the flaws in the system and you're right because you don't think it's flawed if you view CSS and not being used for design but as an add on to the communication of data.
I can see where you're coming from but aren't you forgetting that CSS is about styling the mark-up and by styling we're really focusing on designing and layout. So, as designers it is legitimate to note that it doesn't work in quite the way we expected it to and more importantly as a method used before (ie Tables) did.
If you think CSS is faultless I suggest you haven't really used it enough or pushed it enough and I do think you're on your own with that view. However I would agree that learning the how's and why's will assist in creating most of the designs people want to produce. Nevertheless, what most people, except moth, think is that there are some things it was just easier to do using a table.
- moth0
- hyt0
I think ismith fails at web design...
- maximillion_0
css is a huge step forward over tables, the problems with "it" is browser developers like M$ who consistently dont abide by the standards and create a load of work for digital in the process - the box model being an example
- Actually not, microsoft dumped their box model in IE 5 The saddest thing is, their box model was better.rafalski