Jul -- Computers and Technology: CSS Anti-table elitism?

Tiden
Disgusting human being, just awful
Level: NaN

Posts: 3354/-6493
EXP: NaN
For next: 0

Since: 07-03-07

Pronouns: they/them

Since last post: 4.1 years
Last activity: 3.6 years

Posted on 02-12-09 05:35:37 AM (last edited by hydraphatphelinez at 02-12-09 02:39 AM)

Link | Quote

okay.

Bottom!

Divs.

Edit: changed a div into a span.

Rachel Mae

Creature of Chaos
Level: 141

Posts: 1706/5929
EXP: 33605694
For next: 514320

Since: 07-03-07

Pronouns: she/her
From: Foxglen

Since last post: 21 days
Last activity: 13 hours

Posted on 02-12-09 09:21:09 AM

Link | Quote


	Jul Mosts 2009 Originally posted by hydraphatphelinez Actuallllly, a few rendering engines support "non-standard" css declarations: `-moz-border-radius` and `-webkit-border-radius` There's supposed to be an equivalent, standard declaration specified in CSS3, but only supported in FF3 and any webkit-based browser (surprise!) Death to proprietary HTML! Long live proprietary CSS! The hypocrisy burns. ____________________

Sukasa

Level: 123

Posts: 662/4326
EXP: 20936794
For next: 294472

Since: 07-07-07

Since last post: 1.1 years
Last activity: 1.1 years

Posted on 02-12-09 01:45:09 PM

Link | Quote

I find divs useful in some places (oddly, I find them easier to position), but apart from that, trying to do *any* sort of complex positioning just screws right up if I don't use tables.

____________________

[18:18:26] <&SuBot> Ask Tina

Darkdata
Ruins!? ♥
Level: 103

Posts: 842/2892
EXP: 11446648
For next: 24758

Since: 07-04-07

Since last post: 203 days
Last activity: 11 days

Posted on 02-12-09 02:33:15 PM (last edited by Darkdata at 02-12-09 11:37 AM)

Link | Quote

Originally posted by Metal_Man88
Feh, you want outdated but useful tags?

Well, first thing, Bold ~~strike~~ underline italics. Wait a minute, that is that? They have 'Strong' instead? Really now. HTML came from SGML back a long time ago. You're not gonna make it less dependent on tags which say 'display THIS way' than it already is with CSS

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN"
"http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/loose.dtd">

Hehe, Maybe I am not that great of a supporter after all. Huzzah for Transitional for letting me <b> <I> and <u> to my hearts content.

Originally posted by Waffle Ryebread
Originally posted by hydraphatphelinez
Actuallllly, a few rendering engines support "non-standard" css declarations:
-moz-border-radius
and
-webkit-border-radius
There's supposed to be an equivalent, standard declaration specified in CSS3, but only supported in FF3 and any webkit-based browser (surprise!)
Death to proprietary HTML! Long live proprietary CSS!

The hypocrisy burns.

Then why just not use it, and do it the million of other methods?

The nice thing about web design is that as long as it works and looks nice, any extra details are just window dressing. [even web validation, look at google

]

____________________

Rachel Mae

Creature of Chaos
Level: 141

Posts: 1716/5929
EXP: 33605694
For next: 514320

Since: 07-03-07

Pronouns: she/her
From: Foxglen

Since last post: 21 days
Last activity: 13 hours

Posted on 02-13-09 03:47:27 AM

Link | Quote


	Jul Mosts 2009 Originally posted by Darkdata Then why just not use it, and do it the million of other methods? The nice thing about web design is that as long as it works and looks nice, any extra details are just window dressing. [even web validation, look at google ] Uh, I don't use them. I'm just saying it's rather hypocritical for an organization that prides itself on having a standards-compliant browser to include non-standard CSS declarations. ____________________

Lyskar
12210

-The Chaos within trumps the Chaos without-
Level: 192

Posts: 2019/12211
EXP: 99326283
For next: 547288

Since: 07-03-07

From: 52-2-88-7

Since last post: 7.4 years
Last activity: 7.3 years

Posted on 02-13-09 04:24:59 AM

Link | Quote

Time/Date

02-12-09 10:24:59pm

Posts

2019

Days Here

590

Level

64

	Metal_Man88
	Local Moderator

'Sides, we all know the Web doesn't use the standards, even the good ones. It uses what it wants, and browsers support 'em.

____________________

Xkeeper

Level: 263

Posts: 9710/25353
EXP: 297156464
For next: 1803989

Since: 07-03-07

Pronouns: they/them/????????

Since last post: 3 days
Last activity: 13 hours

Posted on 02-13-09 10:38:58 AM

Link | Quote

Originally posted by Darkdata
The nice thing about web design is that as long as it works and looks nice, any extra details are just window dressing. [even web validation, look at google ]

honestly, this.

the whole concept of 'Valid XHTML 1.01 Strict' is fucking stupid. Who cares? (also, lol @ every error is fatal.)

Being able to get a "Valid HTML" button does not make your site any better than without. 99.999% of the web population doesn't fucking care. It's great and all if it works, but it provides nothing better functionally*.

By the way, here's another piece of table positioning you'd be hard-pressed to replicate:

Oh, what's that? divs don't support "vertical-align"? oh well!

(yes, there is "display: table"... But what about col/rowspan? IE6/7? tables work in pretty fucking much everything.)

* in before "durr, but there are people out there using Lynx and/or are disabled": right. having super valid HTML (instead of just well-formed, like using headings and paragraphs) really makes a fucking difference.

Tiden
Disgusting human being, just awful
Level: NaN

Posts: 3359/-6493
EXP: NaN
For next: 0

Since: 07-03-07

Pronouns: they/them

Since last post: 4.1 years
Last activity: 3.6 years

Posted on 02-13-09 07:16:07 PM (last edited by hydraphatphelinez at 02-13-09 04:19 PM)

Link | Quote

cheated with padding >:|

Register - Login
Views: 99827947	Main - Memberlist - Active users - Calendar - Wiki - IRC Chat - Online users Ranks - Rules/FAQ - Stats - Latest Posts - Color Chart - Smilies	05-03-22 08:33:36 PM

Query execution time:	0.085836 seconds
Script execution time:	0.029082 seconds
Total render time:	0.114918 seconds