Suzanne — Sun, 14 Mar 2004 15:55:18 +0000

Hold on tiger, you're saying that when the type of content is highly variable tables are better? !?! I have some indelible memories of table layouts falling to pieces when over-sized or wrongly marked up content made its way in there.

There is absolutely no difference in display when you use tables as when you use CSS for layout if you're running from a template, if your content is marked up properly, and assuming that your content fits the parameters of the template (if it doesn't you will see changes and problems in BOTH types of layouts, but they will be different changes and problems), of course.

3 columns has traditionally been a bit of a bugaboo. Not only are they a royal pain for users (noise, predominantly, and mashed content while they shove more ads in your face), they have the biggest display issues. However, they have been (as Abhi noted) mostly ironed out.

And yes, of course, there are exceptions to the multiple columns being tabular data, but in almost all real world online situations, that holds true. The web isn't a newspaper and using columns for article text can be a nightmare for someone trying to read it. I hope that CSS3 has the columns only available for print, frankly.

Busy — Sun, 14 Mar 2004 09:35:08 +0000

It's mostly IE that does it, if you have a div in a nested table (might even be with colspan) the CSS div gets confused and wraps on itself (two lines instead of one) even if enough space in the td cell,

Example I was trying to give is like this forum, and add two more columns of info drawn from db, imagine the site done in pure CSS, would be a lot less work with tables than in pure CSS to make it compatiable across the board.

Don't get me wrong peoples, I have nothing against CSS and do use it, just think some times tables out weigh CSS, and as the age old saying goes "just because you can ..." classic example is frames, frames would make our work so much easier but since they have been abused so much frames are now tarbu and plus they don't help search engine or bookmarking among other areas easier.

Abhishek Reddy — Sun, 14 Mar 2004 04:26:57 +0000

I don't quite follow what you're saying, Busy. I don't see why 3-column layouts have to be problematic either.

What's wrong with CSS and nested tables?

Busy — Sun, 14 Mar 2004 04:08:18 +0000

for my example make the overall table 100% and columns 25, 50 and 25% and the data being pulled being actual content, one side navigation, middle content and other side adverts, poll, calendar or whatever.
Does your 3 column rule still apply?

I doubt anyone would create a sites layout like this (just trying to keep example simple) but **puts on best poker face** I think I found a hole in your theory

CSS has alignment problems in nested tables, so if say you added **must think of something that isnt tabular** and used CSS you got problems in buggy browsers.

Abhishek Reddy — Sun, 14 Mar 2004 02:29:48 +0000

Chroder wrote: I found this thread that explained it pretty well: http://www.webmasterworld.com/forum83/2515.htm

Requires login.

Chroder — Sun, 14 Mar 2004 02:02:46 +0000

I don't think thats an absolute rule, more like a "general trend"

I found this thread that explained it pretty well: http://www.webmasterworld.com/forum83/2515.htm

Abhishek Reddy — Sun, 14 Mar 2004 01:16:27 +0000

Suzanne wrote: More than 3 columns qualifies as tabular data.

Surely not as an absolute rule. I can imagine presenting lengthy text, such as in news articles over more than 3 columns, although it's not necessarily ideal... CSS3 incorporates multiple columns anyway.

Suzanne — Sun, 14 Mar 2004 01:08:21 +0000

Ha, Busy, I just realized I could compress it further by using class="section $bgcolor" and dropping the $bgcolor from the other divs.

2-3 columns are easily done in CSS. More than 3 columns qualifies as tabular data.

syncmaster — Sat, 13 Mar 2004 23:14:41 +0000

Definitely table design to format the page and to add columns and so forth.

Busy — Wed, 10 Mar 2004 03:43:51 +0000

remind me never to play any board games with you Suzanne