New home page

[Nick Sabalausky]

"Stephan Soller" <stephan.soller at helionweb.de> wrote in message 
news:i8epjv$1d3p$1 at digitalmars.com...
> On 05.10.2010 04:28, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
>> "Walter Bright"<newshound2 at digitalmars.com>  wrote in message
>> news:i8d77c$1bf1$1 at digitalmars.com...
>>> Stewart Gordon wrote:
>>>> The layout breaks in anything but the default text zoom.
>>>
>>> The annoying thing about this is everyone says "don't use tables for
>>> layout, use CSS." Except that using CSS for layout DOESN'T WORK 
>>> RELIABLY.
>>> With tables, I can get 3 columns that are actually 3 columns, not 3
>>> columns that are a side effect of bugs in CSS.
>>
>> YES!! This is a pet peeve of mine (but then, what isn't? ;) ). I've even
>> been meaning to write up a little article about it. For styling, CSS is,
>> umm, acceptable. But it's crap for layout. And every argument I've seen
>> against using tables for layout has been either extremely minor,
>> questionable/uncited, or just plain bullcrap.
>>
>> Speaking of, if anyone has links to well-regarded "why you shouldn't use
>> tables for layout" information, please post them. Whenever I get around 
>> to
>> doing that little write-up I'd like to try to refute as much as I can. Or 
>> be
>> proven wrong before making a bigger ass of myself. Either way :)
>>
>
> The point in not using the table _element_ for layout is that HTML should 
> be used to define the _content_ of your page not its appearance.
...
> Basically it's all about separation of content and presentation. It's not 
> always easy (nor always necessary) but if done right you don't have to 
> touch the HTML code for your next redesign (and the search engines are 
> very happy about proper HTML code, too).
>

Yea, I do agree in principle. But in my experience, certain realities of CSS 
complicate the issue.

Basically, I've spent enormus amounts of time and energy getting certain 
layouts to work properly and reliably in CSS. There's been plenty of times 
I've come across that and eventualy just threw my hands up and said "Ok, the 
heck with purity and ideals, I just need to get it done: So hello tables!". 
And every single time I've done that everything went smooth from that point 
on.

If CSS could handle layouts as well as tables can, then I would be all for 
abandoning tables-for-layouts. But CSS just isn't there yet. And I don't see 
it progressing much.

Plus I often find redesigning HTML a lot more straightforward than tweaking 
typical production-scale CSS (CSS can get real hairy real quick).

Not only that, I've recently started doing my sites in a very 
MVC/rails/django-ish way whenever possible, so for me, the HTML usually *is* 
just as much part of the view as the CSS anyway. And all I have to do to 
redesign it is just tweak an html template file. As a bonus, that allows for 
much more flexibility in my redesigns (and much more easily) than CSS could 
ever hope to achieve without CSS itself getting a fundamental overhaul.

> ps.: I'm usually only reading this newsgroup because I'm somewhat new to 
> D. But I couldn't resist answering about CSS. ;)
>

Welcome :)