Topic awaiting preservation: Huh, tables better than CSS? (Page 1 of 1)

Here is an interesting article basically debunking CSS layout and the W3C. This guy needs a wake-up call.

Read it here.

The really sad thing is this is the #1 search result on MSN when searching for "css versus table layout"

This guy has obviously never worked on a corporate web site and had to swim the maze of table hell. You know how that goes, a table for the main layout, and a multitude of nested tables all throughout, the result is an incomprehensible pile of tr and td tags. It gets even more impossible when you include some rowspans and colspans into the mix. I am sure a lot of us know what a frustrating experience that can be.



[This message has been edited by Ramasax (edited 11-11-2003).]

this came up over at The GN as well, if you're interested

__________________________
Cell 1007::

yup, and zeldman kicked decloaks ass

And anyone who is actually convinced by any of that self-serving, baseless, ignorant tripe needs a brain transplant.

=)

quote:

---

What's really stupid is that these non-visual browsers aren't smart enough to figure out what the words mean or have some idea what they pertain to? There is a spell checker and a GRAMMAR checker in Microsoft WORD. What is really that much different in a web page?

---

heh...I personally find that quote very amusing.

blarg now I'm not the CSS zealot by any means but so much of this logic is so flawed it's not even worth reading.

but BTW linking to the article even more is going to rank it even higher in most search enginens



.:[ Never resist a perfect moment ]:.

I'm going to invent the "unlink", which can't be clicked and lowers a page's ranking on google:

<a unhref="...">...</a>

hmm...... display:none


Code - CGI - links - DHTML - Javascript - Perl - programming - Magic - http://www.twistedport.com
ICQ: 67751342

There's so much ignorance and dis-information in that article.

quote:

---

*THE REASON FOR CSS PURIST'S HOSTILITY
A lot of these CSS purists don't even have a data-driven site so they have no appreciation of what you can do with a database. Plus their own personal web site typically has a bunch of static pages anyway. (...)

---

Wow! Did he forgot the sites, he mentionned himself, like Wired, ESPN, Macromedia ... does he think those sites are made of static pages ?

Slime: Such attribute is really tempting to counter the spammers. But some corporate websites could (mis)use it to ruin the pageRank of their concurents and thus spam in a new way. Aaaarhh f**king vicious circle.

Mathieu "POÏ" HENRI

Face it Tables 0wn CSS

[url=http://hackingzone.org/]
Fatal Industries -- The-bronze webhosting

Lacuna: Thanks for the link to GN. Guess I should have known somebody else would have dug up this dribble before me.

The guy ought to be smacked silly for this line alone: "W3C standards are totally useless."

I just had to post it due to the sheer ignorance Decloak shows when talking about CSS. Not our problem, he'll be the one working at McDonalds in 5 years or so. Hope he can deal with their standards.

<intercom>Could Trigger please report to the 'Big Sigs' forum immediately</intercom>

My sigs only a little bit longer than bitdamgeds


Fatal Industries -- The-bronze webhosting

Trigger, maybe ramasax dosent get why you feel the need for a link in your sig to the asylum while posting in the asylum, I sure dont.

quote:

---

You essentially make it harder to figure out where things go in design view, and on top of that, maintain it in the first place.

---

I just don't really see how that's possible. I would much rather sort through CSS code and very little HTML that a bunch of freaking nested tables!

Also the comment about the W3C being useless.....ugh!

I actually couldn't stand reading through all of it. Was pointless.

Later,

C:\


~Binary is best~