Tables or CSS-P?

Webforumz Staff · #1 (**permalink**) Oct 27th, 2003, 17:28

Are you using Tables or CSS-P (Positioning Cascading Style Sheets) for your web page layouts?

jamslam · #2 (**permalink**) Oct 28th, 2003, 01:10

It's CSS, no need to refer to it as something different. Position is a part of CSS...

It is not really a matter of choice, but right or wrong. Tables are wrong, CSS is correct. Tables are designed to hold data, not lay out pages. CSS is designed to make the pages look pretty, that is not HTML's job.

courtjester · #3 (**permalink**) Oct 28th, 2003, 01:14

Strange... Everyone says tables is the way to go. That's pretty interesting. I guess I will have to try out both and see what works best for me and mine. By the way, this poll is on what you do, not who is "politically correct". Just wanted to emphasize that.

Webforumz Staff · #4 (**permalink**) Oct 28th, 2003, 07:52

Yes indeed. I wasn't asking which was correct, just which was being used. I haven't used CSS to position content EVER. I'm just very used to tables.

How well supported is CSS-P ?

Webforumz Staff · #5 (**permalink**) Oct 28th, 2003, 08:09

Consistency across different browsers is why I've avoided it so far. I tried it a few years back with bad results, but maybe that's all been fixed now.

And there are a few alignment things I just can't figure out how to do with just CSS though.

Honestly though I don't think I've ever come across a webpage and looked at it's source code to find that they've used CSS-P instead of tables. Kinda makes you think they should improve table functionality and rename it as a "layout grid" or something.

Anyway, for a nice article about this issue check out http://www.alistapart.com/articles/practicalcss/

jamslam · #6 (**permalink**) Oct 28th, 2003, 19:27

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by catalyst

Consistency across different browsers is why I've avoided it so far. I tried it a few years back with bad results, but maybe that's all been fixed now.

And there are a few alignment things I just can't figure out how to do with just CSS though.

Honestly though I don't think I've ever come across a webpage and looked at it's source code to find that they've used CSS-P instead of tables. Kinda makes you think they should improve table functionality and rename it as a "layout grid" or something.

Anyway, for a nice article about this issue check out http://www.alistapart.com/articles/practicalcss/
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Look at my site, I use no tables. Just CSS.

Improve table functionality? Whatever for? Tables are for data, not to lay out sites, I can't stress that enough. Tables don't need to be improved, for they are perfect at what they are supposed to be used for. Many many people use HTML to display their pages... Such as coloring, alignment, etc... This is incorrect usage of the HTML language. Using CSS is the correct form of doing this, that's why it is here.

In modern day web development, CSS is a mandatory skill to build a web page. As without it, how would you lay out pages? Not with tables, for again, it is wrong.

And CSS-P is no different than CSS. They are the same thing.

@kulegamr - who says tables are the way to go? That is just plain ignorance on proper web development.

Many people seem to get upset whenever they hear the truth. Why? Because they don't want to redo everything, or they were taught wrong.

Heck, the web page design course at my school is all completely wrong. They teach deprecated code, and they teach you to lay out your pages with tables. This is why many amateur designers do this wrong, or won't accept that it's wrong. Also, in the web page design course they neglect to touch upon CSS, which is just outrageous. CSS is not an option, it is a mandatory language to design a proper web site.

Rob · #7 (**permalink**) Oct 28th, 2003, 19:43

I have to strongly disagree with the comments that 'tables are wrong' for laying out pages.

For years tables were the ONLY way of laying out a page.

Now that CSS has come along, we are all given a tremendous tool to make our lives a hell of a lot easier, and it's true that professional web developers should embrace this technology to keep up with others that have already embraced it.

One thing that is categorically NOT TRUE is the statement that tables are wrong... there is no right, or wrong way, merely different ways.

Jamslam, I could say building a web application in ASP is wrong, that is not what ASP was designed for... people should use .NET.

People today who are still writing programs in Delphi are wrong.... people using still programming mainframes in COBOL are wrong..

I hope this makes you understand that tables are not wrong... they are just merely not the best way... just like filling your car radiator with water from a cup is not WRONG, but there are better, faster and more effecient ways of doing so.

jamslam · #8 (**permalink**) Oct 28th, 2003, 20:10

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Rob

I have to strongly disagree with the comments that 'tables are wrong' for laying out pages.

For years tables were the ONLY way of laying out a page.

Now that CSS has come along, we are all given a tremendous tool to make our lives a hell of a lot easier, and it's true that professional web developers should embrace this technology to keep up with others that have already embraced it.

One thing that is categorically NOT TRUE is the statement that tables are wrong... there is no right, or wrong way, merely different ways.

Jamslam, I could say building a web application in ASP is wrong, that is not what ASP was designed for... people should use .NET.

People today who are still writing programs in Delphi are wrong.... people using still programming mainframes in COBOL are wrong..

I hope this makes you understand that tables are not wrong... they are just merely not the best way... just like filling your car radiator with water is not WRONG, but there are better, faster and more effecient ways of doing so.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Those are irrelevant comparisons. HTML was not made to "design" pages, CSS was. People just decided to take HTML into their own hands, and use tables for laying out pages. Just like using the tag is incorrect. Any professional web developer will tell you so.

It isn't just that it's more efficient, it's that it's the correct way of doing it. Those are the standards of web development, and they should most definitely be followed.

jamslam · #9 (**permalink**) Oct 28th, 2003, 20:33

I took this straight from W3C

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">The original version of HTML was designed to represent the structure of a document, not its presentation. Even though presentation-oriented elements were later added to the language by browser manufacturers, HTML is at heart a document structuring language. XHTML2 takes HTML back to these roots, by removing all presentation elements, and subordinating all presentation to stylesheets. This gives greater flexibility, and more powerful presentation possibilities, since CSS can do more than the presentational elements of HTML ever did.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml2/introduction.html#s_intro

There's the link.. it's part of the XHTML 2 draft... Which is very interesting, I'm reading up on it now, and came across that.

courtjester · #10 (**permalink**) Oct 28th, 2003, 21:40

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">... just like filling your car radiator with water from a cup is not WRONG,<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

what are you supposed to fill a radiator with????

Ok, for real now. I have been talking to different people about this subject, and they have told me that their professors have been teaching them Tables and CSS. They said that tables are the most preferred way because it is supported by more browsers.

jamslam · #11 (**permalink**) Oct 28th, 2003, 21:54

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by kulegamr

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">... just like filling your car radiator with water from a cup is not WRONG,<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

what are you supposed to fill a radiator with????

Ok, for real now. I have been talking to different people about this subject, and they have told me that their professors have been teaching them Tables and CSS. They said that tables are the most preferred way because it is supported by more browsers.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

-_-

http://www.w3.org/Style/CSS/

CSS is supported by enough browsers to be used regularly, instead of tables. W3C, the creators, themselves state that HTML is not used for design purposes, in the quote I posted above. How can the creators of the markup be wrong? They can't be, because they made it.

Why are tables preferred? Because they are easier. And when trying to accomplish a trivial layout in tables may be much easier then doing it with CSS, CSS is still the correct way. Many amateurs to web design argue that tables are better because it's easier.

Renegadeillusion · #12 (**permalink**) Oct 28th, 2003, 22:04

Positioning is a part of css as jamslam said, CSS-P is just plain CSS

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">CSS is designed to make the pages look pretty,<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

true

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">
technically, u can't modify colors or align anything in HTML <hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

postitiing is one part,

tables can/are used to show data

(i use css to position on my site as well) no tabels are even there..

Webforumz Staff · #13 (**permalink**) Oct 28th, 2003, 22:29

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">W3C, the creators, themselves state that HTML is not used for design purposes, in the quote I posted above. How can the creators of the markup be wrong? They can't be, because they made it. <hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

...and the Internet was built as a secure communications network by the government in case of a nuclear war. Limiting your use of anything limits you as a creator. Sure we use tricks and bend the rules, some of the coolest things I've written combine technologies in a way they weren't intended to be used.

There are so many topics is development that people are strongly opinionated and divided about. Mac vs PC, ASP vs PHP, mySQL vs MSSQL, MS vs Linux... It's a waste of time to keep yelling "that's wrong" or "this is better" without explaining why you feel that way.

If you say CSS is right and tables suck then tell us all why. Convert us to your way, don't just deride us. If I can make a more complex layout than your site in less time that looks the same on every browser and any developer can take over and modify then tell me what's better about CSS.

That someone says it's better or because that's what it's meant for means nothing in the real world, I need some solid examples...

(For what it's worth I use both CSS and tables, and I personally know the arguments for CSS but I'd like to hear why you like it to the exclusion of tables)

jamslam · #14 (**permalink**) Oct 28th, 2003, 22:40

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by catalyst
...and the Internet was built as a secure communications network by the government in case of a nuclear war. Limiting your use of anything limits you as a creator. Sure we use tricks and bend the rules, some of the coolest things I've written combine technologies in a way they weren't intended to be used.

There are so many topics is development that people are strongly opinionated and divided about. Mac vs PC, ASP vs PHP, mySQL vs MSSQL, MS vs Linux... It's a waste of time to keep yelling "that's wrong" or "this is better" without explaining why you feel that way.

If you say CSS is right and tables suck then tell us all why. Convert us to your way, don't just deride us. If I can make a more complex layout than your site in less time that looks the same on every browser and any developer can take over and modify then tell me what's better about CSS.

That someone says it's better or because that's what it's meant for means nothing in the real world, I need some solid examples...

(For what it's worth I use both CSS and tables, and I personally know the arguments for CSS but I'd like to hear why you like it to the exclusion of tables)
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

I'm sure that some of the coolest things you developed with combined technologies as they were not meant to be used, did not comply in some way or another.

Firstly, you should be using CSS because it's correct. If you want to design sites properly, that's how you do it. It is a standard. The comparison you use, such as language vs. language, or OS vs. OS is irrelevant, simply because that is a matter of opinion, whereas CSS and table is a matter of right and wrong.

Secondly, CSS is faster, and it can be indexed by search engines better, given the order you present your information. Tables are slower, especially when you start nesting.

I used to use tables, but then I realized the shear power of CSS. You can write something once, and simply reuse it throughout your site, and I'm positive that you are aware of that.

I have proved to you, with evidence from the create, W3C, that using tables to layout your site is using the mark-up for presentation purposes, which is not the purpose of the HTML, it's the purpose of CSS.

I am trying to stress that this is not a matter of opinion, but simply a matter of right and wrong. If you want to follow the standards, then use CSS. If you want to break the standards of web development, and disregard reccomendations from W3C, then use tables.

Webforumz Staff · #15 (**permalink**) Oct 28th, 2003, 23:04

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">I'm sure that some of the coolest things you developed with combined technologies as they were not meant to be used, did not comply in some way or another.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
Unfair. Look at the way the I used the XML parsing COM component to allow a site to save images off another site in the ASP forum, nothing non-compliant about that and I know that's not what the XML component's purpose it.

Hmm, to be honest the search engine indexing is the only practical advantage you mentioned, and that has nothing to do with page layout. The rest are about symantics and definitions. I can and do use a hidden CSS layer for search engines and then put my table code under it.

I also use server side includes on all my sites and generally only have to build a single table layout that way, more code reuse in fact than even CSS so there's no big advantage there.

Are you talking about rendering speed or coding speed when you say tables are slower?

Anyway, I'm still waiting to hear some more real-world practical reasons to use CSS over tables (like being able to deliver different layouts of a page for printing or based on screen rez).

At first I was just interested in who's using CSS instead of tables, but now I'm more curious about the thinking behind it and 'purpose' isn't a convincing argument to me personally.

jamslam · #16 (**permalink**) Oct 28th, 2003, 23:42

Unfair. Look at the way the I used the XML parsing COM component to allow a site to save images off another site in the ASP forum, nothing non-compliant about that and I know that's not what the XML component's purpose it.

Hmm, to be honest the search engine indexing is the only practical advantage you mentioned, and that has nothing to do with page layout. The rest are about symantics and definitions. I can and do use a hidden CSS layer for search engines and then put my table code under it.

I also use server side includes on all my sites and generally only have to build a single table layout that way, more code reuse in fact than even CSS so there's no big advantage there.

Are you talking about rendering speed or coding speed when you say tables are slower?

Anyway, I'm still waiting to hear some more real-world practical reasons to use CSS over tables (like being able to deliver different layouts of a page for printing or based on screen rez).

At first I was just interested in who's using CSS instead of tables, but now I'm more curious about the thinking behind it and 'purpose' isn't a convincing argument to me personally.

[/quote]

Hmm.. I thought you were talking about HTML and CSS being combined.

I use a database driven site, so if I built a site with tables, it would be the same thing as includes. But that isn't my point. In your case, and mine, CSS would not take an advantage in that particular area.

I was talking about rendering speeds.

And yes, that is another good argument... Delivering different layouts. .

I guess it really depends on whether you want to follow standards or not. Personally, when I look at a site that is designed with tables, I think that they have not taken advantage of the true power of CSS, and are neglegent towards it. It's like forming an opinion when someone uses improper english.

If you want to follow the standards, and do it correctly, then use CSS. If you want to break the standards, and like I said in my last post, disregard reccomendations of W3C, then use tables.

The reason why I am so strongly against using HTML for presentation purposes is because I want to follow standards, and become a better web developer.

When I used to use tables for my layouts, I found them to get very complex, very fast. With multiple nested tables, it was hard to edit. With CSS I have much less HTML, and it's easy edited.

As XHTML popularity increases, and regular HTML is outdated, people will be forced to use CSS instead of tables for layout.

CSS gives you so much more flexibility than tables. Tables are strict, and are hard to format. Whereas CSS is much more flexible. You may think I am contradicting what I said earlier, about how it is much easier to design a site in tables. That is still true. But the more complex you get, the harder it will become. I might not be making sense here...

It took me a while myself to realize that it was time to abandon tables, but now that I have, I will never go back. I feel so much more free with CSS.

I also have not seen one message board designed in CSS, but instead with tables. I am designing my own message board, and I hope to break this viscious pattern and make the first message board designed in CSS, to my knowledge, like it should be.

In the end, it comes down to really whether or not you want to follow standards. There are pretty good arguments for both sides, but standards tell the web developer to use CSS. That's my best argument.

Webforumz Staff · #17 (**permalink**) Oct 29th, 2003, 00:11

Thanks for explaining further. I certainly agree that if you're looking toward the future it's probably time to start making the transition toward using CSS for layouts.

You're right about the rendering speed, and also you can control the order in which parts of the page load using CSS which can be a big plus. Not to mention there's some things you just can't do with a table no matter how hard you try.

Mostly I was just curious about what it was that made you feel so strongly about it. I'd be interested to see the CSS messageboard when you get it done.

jamslam · #18 (**permalink**) Oct 29th, 2003, 01:21

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by catalyst

Thanks for explaining further. I certainly agree that if you're looking toward the future it's probably time to start making the transition toward using CSS for layouts.

You're right about the rendering speed, and also you can control the order in which parts of the page load using CSS which can be a big plus. Not to mention there's some things you just can't do with a table no matter how hard you try.

Mostly I was just curious about what it was that made you feel so strongly about it. I'd be interested to see the CSS messageboard when you get it done.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Yea, I haven't started coding the front-end yet. And I'm not even going to think about it till I get done the nasty admin section. It's a school project, and doubling as a addon to my site, so it's a win-win. I just hope I can finish before the semester is up :-x

But yup your right, CSS is definitely the future. I am starting to see more and more site using CSS, and more and more people catching on to CSS. However, there are still many out there who don't understand the power of it.

courtjester · #19 (**permalink**) Oct 29th, 2003, 02:26

Well.. back to all of this.. it is the "correct" way of doing it. Well.. everyone who says this is a more than likely a hypocrit. (I cant spell) A phone line was never intended for sharing data from pc to pc, nor was a cable jack.... So... SHould we stop doing this as well?

u2orange · #20 (**permalink**) Oct 29th, 2003, 08:24

I think the polls speak for themselves, don't you?

I agree with Rob's earlier post, it is not a case of what is wrong, it is adaption (there is more than one way to skin a cat). I cannot ever remember reading the hard and fast rule: If you use tables to for layout, you are doing it wrong. CSS is an adaption to HTML, to help, weather you embrace it or not, it is not right or wrong.

Just my $0.02

u2o

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
omg keep me away from tables !!! HELP!!!	bruno89	Web Page Design	5	Jul 1st, 2007 18:33
Use CSS to do what tables do?????	WebNinja	Web Page Design	17	Feb 18th, 2007 01:07
Why are tables bad?	WebNinja	Web Page Design	17	Jan 31st, 2007 21:31
No more tables?	PicoDeath	Web Page Design	9	Sep 28th, 2006 18:03
Tables or CSS?	bee_bo	Web Page Design	15	Jul 6th, 2006 08:32

		Webforumz.com > Main Forums > Design Your Website > Web Page Design
Tables or CSS-P?