Tempted to agree...

[timmytots]

Read the following:

http://www.decloak.com/Dev/CSSTables/CSS_Tables_01.aspx

Although I've only just started using css and xhtml I've got to admit that it seems a bit rubbish. It's great, no doubt, for sticking all your fonts and styles etc in one place. It's great for consistency. But when it comes to certain structural cases it seems a lot wiser to use tables. It's easier, you can see exactly what's happening whilst ur doing it and I would predict that the next step for dreamweaver, seeing as you're able to place anything on the screen anywhere, is having a toolbar with various elements in that u can drag and drop onto the stage and nudge around pixel by pixel, just like in Flash, and it'll then generate the xhtml and css code for u. These programs are always striving for user friendliness and so that's what will probably happen imo. The other thing of course is that tables are actually more consistant across browsers and so if u want your site to be viewed how u want by as many people then u should use them. The other issue is that the code in the css just gets too damn long. Mines already very confusing and I've only just started. The fact is the web hasn't caught up with the new methods yet. I realise that the goal of W3 is to make a standard method for the future but when the future comes, as i've mentioned, they'll be easier and more user-friendly ways of doing the coding this forum is hell bent on teaching everyone.

Thanks for listening. Just my current opinion. I'm very impressionable on the matter.

[benbramz]

now this guy is truly anti CSS..

The other issue is that the code in the css just gets too damn long

so...
If you think about it, so does your html. but you dont notice that as your using dreamweaver. Like if u use a server side script, you have to write it out bit by bit...

In my opinien - (and ur getting it ) the auther of that website is a jerk. Im not talking about his facts - but his arguments. They are completly one sided. His section "benefits to css" turned into a mad rant on how IE has a conspiricy to make its browser better...
sorry...but wtf....
Tables being used for design isnt "WRONG" nor is css "RIGHT". its a method, using tables, but you can be extremly limited...
also tim, using tables, could you align an image 50px from the top and 67from the left? yeah, but without going arrrhhh!
Any designer worth his cheese will make benifits of both techniques.

[Rob]

Using CSS and XHTML can at times also be very limited.

Using tables and spacer images you can gain (cross browser) pixel perfect control over layouts .... however the big downfall here is loss of accessibility, code bloat and a low content to code ratio (which matters for SEO)

CSS / XHTML has it's plus sides (lots of them), but is not without it's downsides.

A lot of table-less and compliant designs *can* seem very blocky and a lot like 'James Bond'.... you've seen one, you've seen them all.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not anti-css... quite the contrary... I am however a realist sitting on the fence of the current state of play in technology... I'm not taking a one sided and single minded stance (that so often happens in the Linux vs Windows argument) but wish to present the facts.

Browser compliancy and non-standard implementations of CSS are the biggest disease keeping CSS / XHTML down right now... but with the next generation of browsers, we will see a big change. I think the next biggest thing to push the internet forward from a standards point of view, will be when all browsers support absolute pixel positioning in the same way. Indeed the launch of IE 7 will hopefully be a preview of the next steps... but it wont be the end.

In conclusion, the state of play at the moment leaves many developers banging the heads on brick walls with the limitations and downfalls on both sides. Neither way is right or wrong *at the moment*.... but expect changes to come pretty soon which will collapse a few fences.

[timmytots]

The fact is, I want to be able to proudly stick links at bottom of my page that validate the css and xhtml. If I were to use tables it wouldn't pass xhtml would it?

It certainly seems easier at this point to use a table to accomplish the text by the side of my flash movie. But I really want to see how I can do this tablelessly. Unfortunately, nobody seems to be able to give me a clear answer.

I've got another problem too whereby the big buttons aren't actually functioning as links. And in Mozilla they've got borders round them. ?????????

[herkalees]

sigh. don't forget about accessibility. screen readers have a hard time knowing what to do with tables as they audibly "speak" the site to a blind person.

also, people who browse with their cellphones, Palms, etc. might see the site without style sheets (for the small display), this is where tables will bone things up...

As mentioned before, this will be a never ending argument (tables for layout vs. pure css) until the day everyone gets onboard and does it the "better" way...

... and which way is that?

[benbramz]

this argument, will never end, untill all browsers read tags the same way. and of course, that will never happen. so this topic will pop up a few times..

[Pheonix]

Originally Posted by timmytots

The fact is, I want to be able to proudly stick links at bottom of my page that validate the css and xhtml. If I were to use tables it wouldn't pass xhtml would it?

Wrong, tables can be perfictly valid.

[benbramz]

the validation is how u code it, not the tecnique..(eg tables over css)

[herkalees]

Originally Posted by Pheonix

Wrong, tables can be perfictly valid.

Very correct. The only time tables might get you in trouble with some sort of validating service is when you use the "Bobby AAA" validator thing: http://webxact.watchfire.com/ScanForm.aspx. There are probably others out there, but I don't know of them.

[Rob]

Originally Posted by herkalees

As mentioned before, this will be a never ending argument (tables for layout vs. pure css) until the day everyone gets onboard and does it the "better" way...

Lets not forget, that browser vendors need to be a little closer to each other in terms of rendering consistency in order to fuel this exodus. Until the day that happens, there is only the select few (myself included) who have the patience to design cross browser using no tables.... it's challenging... especially when you are as strict with yourself as I am (I wont use CSS hacks)

[timmytots]

I've read that 'hacks' is misleading, suggesting that it's a cheat or wrong. A better description would be 'patches' given that they repair browsers' discrepancies.

[muneepenee]

"bone-up thangs"...last time me was in skuel(50 yrs ago), bone-up meen "tu study",
did yu redefine the lingo?

[herkalees]

Originally Posted by muneepenee

"bone-up thangs"...last time me was in skuel(50 yrs ago), bone-up meen "tu study",
did yu redefine the lingo?

Not sure where everyone is from, but in the Boston area (Massachusetts, USA, etc), "bone things up" means "to break it/something".

And about my spelling/grammar issues...

[timmytots]

Yeah. Means 'to mess up' here in UK. Munepeenee has issues not only with grammar and spelling but definitions too.

[benbramz]

you all seemed to be able to read it...

[mreine]

Consider the source is all I can say!

He sells a product that probably relies heavily on tables to layout his menu systems precisely. Why on earth would he say one word negative about tables then? CSS is a lot about getting rid of tables so it's in his best interest to pound CSS in to the ground.

CSS is more then just tableless design though. It's consistency, accessibility, speed, manageability, the list goes on. Funny how he ignores these valuable assets of CSS.

[timmytots]

i already agree. css is great for all the reasons u mention.