Re:HTML is object code
by haberman on Sunday August 02, 2009 @07:19AM
(#737316)
> Tables for layout didn't really take off until the late 90's
Which was coincidentally when websites started having sidebars. Are you arguing in favor of pre-1995 web design? Are you arguing that there is a more natural way than tables to express site layouts with sidebars?
When I say "prior to CSS" I mean "prior to wide CSS adoption and browser support". Yes, CSS1 was released in 1996, but it didn't really catch on among web authors for a few years (and wasn't really practical to use anyway due to limited browser support). In that intervening time, websites started sprouting sidebars, and basically all the sites that used sidebars did so with HTML tables.
> And even when they did take off, tables were still burdened with the sorts of quirks and browser incompatibilities people complain about with CSS
Quirks or no, HTML-based tables are more fit for describing layouts than CSS ever will be until web authors can use "display: table" or something like that. With HTML-based tables, you're working around browser quirks (which really aren't as bad as you make them out to be). With CSS, you're working with a language that is too weak (even if implemented perfectly) to express what you're trying to say. With CSS, a three-column layout (something that many, many sites want) is considered a "holy grail" (http://www.alistapart.com/articles/holygrail/).
CSS (pre-"display:table") doesn't have the right abstractions for achieving designers' demonstrated needs. Why do you live in denial of this fact?
Which was coincidentally when websites started having sidebars. Are you arguing in favor of pre-1995 web design? Are you arguing that there is a more natural way than tables to express site layouts with sidebars?
When I say "prior to CSS" I mean "prior to wide CSS adoption and browser support". Yes, CSS1 was released in 1996, but it didn't really catch on among web authors for a few years (and wasn't really practical to use anyway due to limited browser support). In that intervening time, websites started sprouting sidebars, and basically all the sites that used sidebars did so with HTML tables.
> And even when they did take off, tables were still burdened with the sorts of quirks and browser incompatibilities people complain about with CSS
Quirks or no, HTML-based tables are more fit for describing layouts than CSS ever will be until web authors can use "display: table" or something like that. With HTML-based tables, you're working around browser quirks (which really aren't as bad as you make them out to be). With CSS, you're working with a language that is too weak (even if implemented perfectly) to express what you're trying to say. With CSS, a three-column layout (something that many, many sites want) is considered a "holy grail" (http://www.alistapart.com/articles/holygrail/).
CSS (pre-"display:table") doesn't have the right abstractions for achieving designers' demonstrated needs. Why do you live in denial of this fact?