W3schools: The Ugly, the Bad, and the Good

Re:W3schools: The Ugly, the Bad, and the Good by ethana on Thursday February 13, 2014 @06:14AM (#7230728)

There's nothing wrong with using table for layout. Before calling me old school, let it be known that table can do responsive before even css2 was drafted. Also the rendering compatibility of table still looks pixel perfect now as how it was written in 1999.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:W3schools: The Ugly, the Bad, and the Good by mdigi on Thursday February 13, 2014 @06:32AM (#7230768)

Tables are anything but responsive. Responsiveness is not about fluidly changing the width of elements. You can't for example change 3 column layout to 1 column with tables.

The only viable use of tables for layout is when you need to center something vertically. Even then it's better to skip using the tag and apply display: table; and display: table-cell; to respective elements.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:W3schools: The Ugly, the Bad, and the Good by hackerboos on Thursday February 13, 2014 @06:19AM (#7230734)

I sympathise with those using tables for layout considering how unintuitive the box-model is.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:W3schools: The Ugly, the Bad, and the Good by nivla on Thursday February 13, 2014 @08:45AM (#7231279)

I agree. I get chuckle everytime someone complaints about a site using Table layouts on HN, which in itself is built on tables.

However, I find it even worse when people try to recreate a simple table using layers of divs only to represent a series of tabular data. Why take something simple and make it very complex, unmanageable and less cross compatible?

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:W3schools: The Ugly, the Bad, and the Good by drdaeman on Thursday February 13, 2014 @08:35AM (#7231231)

Considering the fact that noone cares about semantics anymore (websites are not documents anymore, but software, just read every other thread which concludes that Javascript is mandatory nowadays) I'd say tables are perfectly fine.

[ Parent | on HN ]