Both are must-reads.
She’s got a point. Sometimes
<table>s do just behave better. Lately I’ve mostly been marking-up designs done by others, and thoes others are firmly in the fixed-width camp, so I haven’t had to worry so much about liquid columns. My problems tend to be vertical alignment: getting the tops — or worse yet, the bottoms — of variable-height elements to line up evenly. Perhaps I lack imagination, but I’ve not found any good way to do it. One can set a height for the elements that one hopes is enough to accommodate all the content, but one extra line of text and the whole thing goes bork.
Personally, I’m with Eric: the lack of a grid-based layout system in CSS is a head-slapper, what-were-they-thinking omission. It’s the elephant in the corner when discussing the relative merits of
<table>s vs. CSS for layout. The CSS2 table-layout properties would more or less mitigate the problem, I suppose. But with IE 5 Mac & Win still about in appreciable numbers, table-layout just isn’t practical for most sites (yet).
Until it is, or until something better comes along, I fear the odd layout
<table> will continue creeping into web designs. And semantics and separation of style and structure will continue to suffer.
Post a Reply
Comments are closed.