Re:CSS Grid – Table layout is back. Be there and be square
by extra88 on Tuesday January 31, 2017 @08:24AM
(#13530293)
Using an element that lacks semantics (<div>) is always better than mis-using an element that has semantics (<tr>, <td>). Why would you need to use more divs than table elements to achieve the same visual layout? I feel like you're not comparing apples to apples. What's so readable and obvious about tables nested 3-4 levels deep?
Anyone who really thinks about how CSS can be used is also going to be against div-itis but it's still less-bad than tables for layout. They're also going to be against excessive use of classes and class names that connote style (class="red") rather than purpose (class="alert").
Re:CSS Grid – Table layout is back. Be there and be square
by yellowapple on Tuesday January 31, 2017 @11:54AM
(#13532382)
"But the shit ton of semantically meaningless divs that are sprinkled around the structure to provide hooks for CSS declarations in the 'usual' style of doing layouts is somehow better?"
No, it's not, as I thought I made plainly clear in my comment. HTML5 introduced a smorgasbord of new tags to avoid that.
You're right that a lot of modern web development fashion is silly, but there are alternatives besides just sticking to tables for everything.
Re:CSS Grid – Table layout is back. Be there and be square
by kuschku on Tuesday January 31, 2017 @10:00AM
(#13531036)
The divs are sprinkled just to say "this is a block, it can be moved or arranged however wished", and styling within the block is done separately.
It’s not intended to do anything more or less.
Re:CSS Grid – Table layout is back. Be there and be square
by andreareina on Tuesday January 31, 2017 @08:22AM
(#13530277)
I feel like this is the reason behind HTML5's semantic elements (e.g. article, nav, etc).
And yes, I've been in this space for years, and this is one of the better example why I feel most of the webdev world is cargo-cult advice that's internally inconsistent if you look at it carefully.