NYCPHP Meetup

[tedd]

At 11:29 AM -0500 1/11/07, 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.

Cliff et al:

How others do coding is their business. As for me, I made the 
transformation from table based layouts to css. I think trying to 
explain the difference to one who has never experienced it for 
themselves is similar to trying to explain the concept of fire to a 
fish. I don't mean to be elitist or condescending, but the difference 
between using tables v css is very significant. Once you make the 
transformation, you'll understand it.

It's not a case of "religion" or "thought police", but rather a 
concept that allows for more efficient coding. Plus, there are many 
side benefits such as a decrease in the size of file, much easier 
maintenance issues, and of course accessibility, which is not a minor 
consideration, but totally ignored in table layouts.

Every advancement has been met with reluctance, that's 
understandable. But if you judge everything by one yardstick (if it 
requires hacks, or not), then nothing will ever work for there are 
differences in current browsers and that will never change. But, the 
trend is certainly and obviously toward compliance.

While the browser developers have to converge on a standard, we as 
developers also have to entertain new methods and technologies as 
well -- for if we don't, as Will Rogers once said "Even if you're on 
the right track, you'll get run over if you just sit there."

Cheers,

tedd

-- 
-------
http://sperling.com  http://ancientstones.com  http://earthstones.com