- From: David Woolley <forums@david-woolley.me.uk>
- Date: Thu, 28 Jun 2007 07:48:43 +0100
- CC: www-style@w3.org
Spartanicus wrote: > preferable over overflow problems, but this property of a table is also > the cause of one of the major objections against the use of tables for > layout: it can wreck proper incremental rendering with the entire grid > having to be reflowed multiple times to accommodate the delayed loading There is an element of bad authoring in this as well. On the occasions when I've looked at table layout web pages, I don't ever think I have seen fixed layout mode being selected, even though the intent of the designers is usually pixel perfection and therefore a very fixed layout. This is not to say that fixing column widths is always good for the reader; just that for authors aiming at truly fixed layout they frustrate incremental rendering by ignorance. Incidentally, one normally doesn't see the repeated reflows with tables. What tends to happen is the page takes a very long time before anything is displayed at all, because the browser buffers until it can render without fixups. -- David Woolley Emails are not formal business letters, whatever businesses may want. RFC1855 says there should be an address here, but, in a world of spam, that is no longer good advice, as archive address hiding may not work.
Received on Thursday, 28 June 2007 06:48:25 UTC