>>> But according to
>>> Validation Results - W3C Markup Validator
>>> 2Fwww.rubywaves.com%2F
>>> you should avoid /> in HTML 4.01 strict.
>> are there any browsers that actually interpret /> per the spec? i've
>> always just ignored that.
>> it appears the underlying problem is related to the way some versions
>> of firefox calculate the offset dimensions of block elements. the way
>> it is laying out the page suggests that it doesn't think it has
>> enough room to put the main content and the sidebar side-by-side.
>> although ie6, opera, safari, and mac / windows ff2 don't agree.
>> anyway. i will take this off-line since it has nothing to do with
>> ruby.
>> thanks again for everyone's help and suggestions.
> one suggestion... use tables and forget about it. all the drivel about
> the superiority of divs mean squat in the face of practical realities.
> T.
Well, I'd like to add to that. The argument against tables is often
an irrational one, but not completely.
The idea, is that using semantic divs for layouts is more flexible
and more accessible (for screen readers and such)
Tables are more brittle and make the code itself harder to read.
No way are they are more brittle --it's divs that are more brittle.
I've seen many a site screwed-up because of messed up divs. To me divs
are beneficial in some of the ways you mention, but they were designed
rather poorly I think. It boggles my mind that it effectively pushes
us back to using absolute sizes all over the place --and then we end
up with things like Blueprint --one monstrosity on top of another. Do
developers like torture or what?
Tables on the other hand, are certainly easier to do layouts with,
but there are plenty of raw recipes out there using CSS to create div
based layouts.
Tables are appropriate when the CDATA (character data) makes sense as
a table.
All of that is just suggestions anyway. Ultimately you can do
whatever you like that works.
You could use spans and make them display:block; in CSS.
You have to measure ROI. You can spend a whole day getting divs
working the way you want. Just spend 10 minutes making it a table. And
it can be worse. Case in point, Waves' site has been broken for a week
now. Just use tables and get it fixed --you can always come back and
redo it with divs when you have the time.
You can avoid CSS altogether and just use HTML containing all of the
presentational markup, but it's tougher to maintain.
Well that's silly. Declarative stylization is hugely beneficial
regardless of whether you use divs or tables for layout.
The biggest problem with tables for layout is that people are often
trying to approximate print document layouts that are fixed and
controlled, but the reality with html is that you must be flexible
and accept the fact that different user-agents (browsers) will render
things differently and that users can resize text in most browsers
and that they all have different possible screen sizes/window sizes.
The main philosophy of div based layouts is that you should give up
trying to exercise complete control of the presentation of the
document in html.
Tables will do hideous things when designed for one platform in pixel-
based sizes...
Why would you do that? You can size your table in % not px.
T.
···
On Feb 10, 11:30 am, John Joyce <dangerwillrobinsondan...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Feb 8, 2008, at 9:14 PM, Trans wrote:
> On Feb 8, 2:20 pm, Dan Yoder <d...@zeraweb.com> wrote:
