[nycphp-talk] And the HTML CSS guru is....
volcimaster at gmail.com
Thu Jan 11 12:31:14 EST 2007
I pretty much just use text email. The HTML formatting is nice for some
things, but most of what I write looks fine whether it's pure text or also
My big reason for avoiding tables when at all possible is that I like
changing layouts on personal (and even some work) sites semi-frequently.
Even when it's just a bunch of color changes, the CSS aspects of my sites
make it a lot easier to accomplish than if I were using tables for layout.
Another important factor for me is that I like to split my pages in a
modular format: I have included menus, sidebars, headers, and footers all of
which are inside their own div. Not having to recall in which order the
tables need to be for that is incredibly useful.
On 1/11/07, Rob Marscher <rmarscher at beaffinitive.com> wrote:
> Usually if you avoid using tables for layout, you can drastically change
> the layout of your page without altering the html. If you keep to the
> indended use of the html tags, then the page should look somewhat ok if
> you turn off your styles altogether (which is maybe how it would look
> for someone using Netscape 4 or some other ancient browser). You can
> also supply different layouts for other uses like printing or for mobile
> devices without changing the html. I think screen readers for visually
> impaired people read table html elements expecting it to be some type of
> data. I can't say that from experience though. So if you don't really
> care about those things, I'm not sure there's anything else wrong with
> using tables for layout except you'll have young "know-it-alls" who just
> got out of their html development class saying that you have really bad
> code (happened to me before). You also can't put those cool xhtml/css
> compliant badges on your page ;)
> That's crazy about Outlook 2007. It's extremely hard to make consistent
> looking html emails. A lot of people require/expect them, but most web
> email clients will strip css and alter the html in other ways, plus
> pretty much none of them will display images without the user clicking a
> button to say it's ok.
> From the article, "Bring on PDF email. I'm ready." - that would be
> perfect except for the bloated file size of the email do to needing to
> embed images and everything in the pdf.
> Cliff Hirsch wrote:
> >>> I have to admit though... avoiding using tables for layout can really
> >>> rack your brain in some situations and take more time to implement.
> > So what's wrong with tables for layout other than all that "not
> > semantically correct" religion stuff? It seems to me that both
> > approaches are essentially flawed as they both require hacks. It's hard
> > for me to justify css/div religion when the browser client space is
> > still so screwed up.
> > And -- get this -- I just read that Outlook 2007 dumped its IE HTML
> > rendering engine for Word's rendering engine, which will further break a
> > whole heck of a lot of html emails.
> > See:
> > http://www.sitepoint.com/newsletter/viewissue.php?id=3&issue=156&format=
> > html#5
> > Cliff
> New York PHP Community Talk Mailing List
> NYPHPCon 2006 Presentations Online
> Show Your Participation in New York PHP
"God may not play dice with the universe, but something strange is going on
with the prime numbers." --Paul Erdős
"It's not possible. We are the type of people who have everything in our
favor going against us." --Ben Jarhvi, Short Circuit 2
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the talk