Tables or DIVs?
- Started
- Last post
- 48 Responses
- knusperpixel
Hi!
I was wondering whether you guys still use tables for layout or do you rely on divs and css.
I would like to start programming 2003-style. But in my opinon this whole css-thing is not implemented good enough. I have the feeling that i have to work about two hours for something i would have done in five minutes using tables.
So, at the moment i am thinking use tables for commercial projects and use divs and stuff for your playgrounds.
What do you think?
- mrdobolina0
whatever works for you. At work, they still want things to be backwards compatible to old versions of netscape to a degree, so I cant use iframes on work-related projects. I use css for simple text and link manipulation, but that is about it.
- Nairn0
Really, just fuck it. I'd been having the same thoughts, then just started plastering DIVs throughout all my corporate work at the start of the year. No-one noticed, no-one complained, and my job was made easier.
That said, I still rely on table when I simply can't be bothered to work out the differences..
- ape0
calendars. How can you use divs?
- knusperpixel0
Sorry?
- 4cY0
DIVs when in xhtml and for ubercompatibility...
tables for cheap&easy shit you don't care about...
- Seph0
both !
- k0na_an0k0
tables and as of lately struts.
- mitsu0
another vote for both
- preston0
tables for layout with the odd DIV used for shimming content more precisely.
Are there any good tutorials for using DIV for layouts? What about a strut explanation?
- sparker0
tables are for tabular data...not layout.
divs, spans and css for layout.
http://www.thenoodleincident.com…
there are more than enough tutorials and examples on well formed markup and css layouts.
it's the proper way to build sites, period.
- unformatted0
both.
divs for layout.
tables for data.css rules.
- fits0
check it out.
www.cingular.comusing all css2
- spk0
learn the new way - for a better web tomorrow.
- kpl0
both. personally use divs but at work tables. I need to build up a case for divs and work that ol' office politicking.
- vena0
nearly alwavs divs, until the client comes back and says his grandma can't see the site on netscape 4, at which point i point out where in the contract it says "5.0+ compatability" and charge them more.
hey, guy's gotta have his standards.
- qaddisin0
tables mostly, css is still not the best option with all the up and down functionality of browsers. and we're about to go into a new era of browsers with ie being integrated, not supported on the mac and that safari thing coming in to play. hell who knows what to expect. windows may die and linux may become the platform to design for. and who said web design is an easy area to get into to. :)
- preston0
Thanks sparker,
I just telepathically sent you a gob of good vibes
- r_gaberz0
.divs
- lowimpakt0
is it not lazy to not have full browser compatibility on corporate sites. if your only discussing the levels of browser compatibility with the client when they come back crying you shouldnt be charging more. you inconvenienced them - a bit like those cowboy builders.
by the way http://www.cingular.com freezes my browser XP IE.6 and that a standard browser init.
- chl0
The best book I've been through regarding this is "Eric Meyer on CSS". Basically, he just takes a bunch of table based sites and re-implements the UI using good CSS.
It is true that there are some things that will take you longer to do using CSS than you could do with tables, in particular the first time you do them. This is because you already know how tables work, and you probably don't know all the CSS techniques. If you spend the time to learn the CSS techniques though, you will probably soon start to see that it is a better way to go if you have the option. It's just a lot more flexible.
Good luck.