W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > February 2002

RE: css layout should be symmetrical

From: Manos Batsis <m.batsis@bsnet.gr>
Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2002 10:31:35 +0200
Message-ID: <E657D8576967CF448D6AF22CB42DD2690FF21A@ermhs.Athens.BrokerSystems.gr>
To: "Henri Sivonen" <hsivonen@niksula.hut.fi>, "Vadim Plessky" <lucy-ples@mtu-net.ru>
Cc: <www-style@w3.org>


> From: Henri Sivonen [mailto:hsivonen@niksula.hut.fi] 

> On Thursday, February 21, 2002, at 04:21 , Vadim Plessky wrote:
> 
> > I hope my "should" was meaning that you *can* use CSS2 tables in 
> > HTML, but
> > that's not recommended.
> 
> But why?

Because if you need tables in html you should use table tags, with one
exception being use of XHTML modularization (not applicable in html4).

 
> I know "layout tables" aren't very popular here, but:
> 
> What's wrong with the CSS2 table layout model compared to CSS 
> positioning? Isn't it easier to create scalable and stretchy layouts 
> using the table model? It seems to me that it is more difficult to 
> create scalable layouts using CSS positioning.

Table Layout and Positioning where designed and should be used for quite
different purposes. That's why z-index has nothing to do with table
layouts ;-)


> IMO, moving from strechy tables to pixel-based positioning just 
> because layout tables are considered harmful is going out of the 
> frying pan into the fire.

Using a table model for layout is just wrong and although this isn't the
place to argue about it in the first place, the tools for a designer to
use for layout are the default document flow and CSS properties designed
for this purpose. BTW, positioning is "pixel-based" only if you use
pixel units.

Continuing this thread privately or on an appropriate mailing list/forum
would be much appreciated. www-style is for technical discussions and
comments on the specs and their development; a deep understanding of the
specs is a perquisite.


Kindest regards,

Manos
Received on Friday, 22 February 2002 03:28:58 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 27 April 2009 13:54:13 GMT