On Mon, Mar 29, 2010 at 2:16 PM, Bill Braun <[email protected]> wrote: > Setting aside the moral implications, having made a transition from a > site built completely around tables to one based on <div>, the latter, > in my experience and opinion, takes much better advantage of CSS. I have > been able to do everything using <div> as I did using <table>, in a much > more flexible manner, and, again in my opinion, with a slight edge in > favor of design aesthetics. > Bill B
I have to agree with the "go whole hog into css and leave the tables behind" approach. After a very rocky first week or two things are working about much better. I am very happy with the subtle aesthetic improvements that strict css affords. During those first few weeks getting my divs to behave was like trying to corral a herd of kittens. Things would pop up here and pop up there. I still don't know what I was doing wrong. All of a sudden it was coming out right. If I didn't know better I would say that they updated Firefox. Because I could swear my code is the same. But it wasn't. I had discovered the one or two tricks that let my divs behave themselves. So don't be surprised if you have a few days of "what in the heck is going on". But, after that you will be happy you dropped the tables. However I still expect to run into some problem that I might need tables for. Just haven't yet. I don't have a philosophical objection to tables. Just don't need them at the moment. Got tired of colspan and rowspan I guess. :) Regards, Claude ______________________________________________________________________ css-discuss [[email protected]] http://www.css-discuss.org/mailman/listinfo/css-d List wiki/FAQ -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/ List policies -- http://css-discuss.org/policies.html Supported by evolt.org -- http://www.evolt.org/help_support_evolt/
