Comments on: More CSS Layout Madness http://www.elharo.com/blog/software-development/web-development/2005/11/29/more-css-layout-madness/ Ranting and Raving Thu, 09 Feb 2012 17:01:34 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.1.3 By: Matt http://www.elharo.com/blog/software-development/web-development/2005/11/29/more-css-layout-madness/comment-page-1/#comment-24 Matt Thu, 01 Dec 2005 04:04:41 +0000 http://blog.elharo.com/blog/?p=34#comment-24 No, really: what's wrong with tables? (And yes, I am only *half* joking.) No, really: what’s wrong with tables? (And yes, I am only *half* joking.)

]]> By: Michael http://www.elharo.com/blog/software-development/web-development/2005/11/29/more-css-layout-madness/comment-page-1/#comment-19 Michael Tue, 29 Nov 2005 21:56:57 +0000 http://blog.elharo.com/blog/?p=34#comment-19 Hi Elliotte, "Why couldn’t CSS layouts be based on liquid nested tables like the ones proven to work by years of experience?" In fact, CSS 2.1 does have its own table model that is independent of HTML tables and could be applied to any markup in your document, like this: div.page { display: table } div.content { display: table-row } ... The resulting tables are entirely defined in the CSS since they are used for layout not semantics, so the markup stays clean enough to keep Lynx users / Google happy. The one (fairly big) problem with this approach is that Internet Explorer does not support it. We could call this the "Netscape 4 syndrome": lowest common denominator strikes again. Hi Elliotte,

“Why couldn’t CSS layouts be based on liquid nested tables like the ones proven to work by years of experience?”

In fact, CSS 2.1 does have its own table model that is independent of HTML tables and could be applied to any markup in your document, like this:

div.page { display: table }
div.content { display: table-row }
…

The resulting tables are entirely defined in the CSS since they are used for layout not semantics, so the markup stays clean enough to keep Lynx users / Google happy.

The one (fairly big) problem with this approach is that Internet Explorer does not support it. We could call this the “Netscape 4 syndrome”: lowest common denominator strikes again.

]]>