STUDY - With Tables or Tableless (with CSS)?

[Webnauts]

Here I would like to start a discussion about pro and contra for tabels or tableless (css) layouts.

When you vote, please explain why have you voted for what you have voted.

This can turn into a great study! Thanks!!!

[Narasinha]

Okay, I voted for layout with CSS, not tables (Big surprise there, right?!). Why? Because I like to build HTML and XHTML that conforms to the proper standards. These standards tell us that tables are to be used for tabular data, not for layout purposes. CSS is for the layout.

But, I do see where the frustration comes from for people that have always used tables to structure their page layout. WHen you set up the table, you know that content A will always be on the left side, with content B and C next to it, one atop the other. You know that because of the cellpadding and cellspacing the graphic in one cell will align perfectly with the graphic in the cell below it, etc.

You tried to set up the page using CSS, and it worked in IE the first time, but not in anything else. Or it didn't work in IE at all. You couldn't get one <div> to line up the way you wanted. It was always too far one direction or another.

Yes, it's frustrating. I find it frustrating because I can't rely on the browser programmers to get their product to properly conform to current CSS and HTML/XHTML specifications, even though my code does. ALL browsers have problems with display of certain CSS items. But they are getting better. As more site developers are conforming to the standards, there is more of an incentive for browser programmers to fully support those standards.

It is kind of a chicken and egg problem though. Why put some type of code in your pages when IE doesn't even see it, and IE counts for 95 percent of the visits to your site? Shouldn't you wait until IE supports it? Since IE advancements (other than security patches) have stopped for the time being, it may be a long wait.

CSS may seem like the hard way to do things. If you haven't used CSS very much, of course it's not easy. Neither was HTML when you first started. As for WYSIWYG editors, I'm not the one to ask. I don't use any of them. I don't know how well they support using CSS for layout (though I hear Dreamweaver is very good).

[Brittany]

Webnauts,

Thanks for the great topic! And welcome back! :-)

Brittany

[Webnauts]

Originally Posted by Brittany

Webnauts,

Thanks for the great topic! And welcome back! :-)

Brittany

Thanks a lot too Brittany!

[langard]

Dumb polling question.

The best sites on the web currently use both tables and CSS. So do I for several reasons.

First, HTML, XHTML, and every other markup language currently recognized by browser manufacturers are all children of parent SGML - which none of them recognize.

That's because SGML, like it's little offspring XML, is all about structure and nothing about content.

CSS, on the other hand, has nothing to do with layout (read structure) and everything to do with adjusting content.

So talking about "CSS without tables" is like talking about mascara without skeletons or visa versa.

CSS is not a King-Hell solution for serious developers of any stripe at this juncture. It's just a tool to manage content as best you can. The W3C adopted it to override all the stupid personal settings browsers allow to "empower" users, which mirrors the idiotic Twain incompatability printer manufacturers perpetuated for years.

[Narasinha]

Originally Posted by langard

First, HTML, XHTML, and every other markup language currently recognized by browser manufacturers are all children of parent SGML - which none of them recognize.

That's because SGML, like it's little offspring XML, is all about structure and nothing about content.

Browsers will choke on raw XML too. They're meant to be fed HTML and XHTML (a subset of XML).

HTML and XHTML are specifically intended to markup the content of a web page. The tags are meant to denote what type of content they enclose. A heading tag (<h1>, <h2>, etc.) is supposed to mark a heading and subsequent subheadings, a paragraph tag is supposed to denote a paragraph, etc. This markup also defines the logical structure of your document. View your web page in Lynx and you'll quickly see the underlying structure of a page.

Originally Posted by langard

CSS, on the other hand, has nothing to do with layout (read structure) and everything to do with adjusting content.

I think this is simply a question of semantics. CSS has nothing to do with the logical structure of your document, but has everything to do with the graphical/physical layout of your document. Your layout should reflect the underlying structure. That doesn't mean it always will.

Originally Posted by langard

So talking about "CSS without tables" is like talking about mascara without skeletons or visa versa.

Tables were originally meant to contain tabular data. They were never meant to define the physical layout of a page. CSS works just fine without tables. Using tables for the physical/graphical layout of your page is okay for transitional pages (XHTML 1.0 Transitional) but should be used only for tabular data when moving to Strict DTDs.

Originally Posted by langard

CSS is not a King-Hell solution for serious developers of any stripe at this juncture. It's just a tool to manage content as best you can. The W3C adopted it to override all the stupid personal settings browsers allow to "empower" users, which mirrors the idiotic Twain incompatability printer manufacturers perpetuated for years.

So there aren't any "serious" developers using CSS? They're all use tables to define their page layouts? Somehow I find that extremely hard to believe. There are quite a few serious developers using CSS and XHTML to develop web sites. True, a lot of these sites do use a table to define a basic page layout, but the main reason for this is because the majority of currently used browsers do not fully support CSS standards. Just watch what we can do once the browsers support the standards properly. Spearating content from layout is the future of web development. The little "tricks" we learned when designing sites in '95 and '96 aren't going to work any more, and they don't have to. You can design a site using proper standards that will still look good, and still be readable ten years from now.

Want to see what some developers have done with content (XHTML) separated from layout (CSS)? Take a look at css Zen Garden. One XHTML file with the content, and dozens of different CSS files to describe the layout. For good contrast, take a look at this layout, Night Drive by Dave Shea, then look at Backyard by Ray Henry. Both of these use exactly the same XHTML file, but different CSS. The content of the pages is exactly the same. The layout is different.

CSS does not "manage" content, but describes the way in which the developer wishes certain content to be displayed on a particular device. The W3C proposed the CSS standard in order to separate the content of a page from its display characteristics (layout). This was the intention of HTML from the very beginning. This is both the past and the future of web design.

Modern browsers allow users to override certain things on purpose. One of the other original intents of HTML was the the browser (i.e. person viewing the site) should have the final determination of how a page was displayed. Does that person have poor eyesight? color-blindness? Let them view the pages in a high-contrast color scheme or large font scheme if they want. Forcing everyone to view a page with red 10 point text on a black background is not the way the web is supposed to work.