I have read stuff here and on the internet about the benefits of laying out
with CSS instead of tables, so I decided to try it out. I copied one of my
pages laid out with tables and created an identical page using CSS. It was
easy because it was a simple two-column layout.

But what's the advantage? The estimated loading time on the bottom of the
screen is exactly the same for both versions. The CSS isn't any easier or
faster to work with, and you have to be careful about long, unbreakable
words. If you have one, and the reader enlarges the font, the right-hand
column will go crashing to the bottom of the page.

With tables, you might get something ugly and mashed-up, but it won't
destroy your layout. It took me quite a while to find the long, unbreakable
word because the right-hand column had gone down to the bottom, whereas with
a table I could have spotted it right away. I couldn't find any fix for this
on the web.

So I found a disadvantage but no advantage. Am I missing something?

Wally S

Wally,
Basically, it's more a matter of style and elegance. Tables are
messy, non-efficient, but they work like a charm if you know how to use them
right. CSS is the "way to go", though I would tack an eventually onto that.
I like CSS, but not for doing layouts. Tables, although they're not very
elegant work nicely and their behavior is well understood. CSS positioning
also works, but has it's own set of quirks across multiple browsers,
especially for sites that have to support users that haven't (don't) want to
upgrade. I still see plenty of users with old versions of Navigator hanging
around and are just too stubborn to upgrade to a new browser.

I would agree with you that a lot of things are easier to spot with
tables and, they usually make our job easier in the end.

Hope this helps,
Mark Fitzpatrick
Microsoft MVP - FrontPage

"Wally S" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
>I have read stuff here and on the internet about the benefits of laying out
> with CSS instead of tables, so I decided to try it out. I copied one of my
> pages laid out with tables and created an identical page using CSS. It was
> easy because it was a simple two-column layout.
>
> But what's the advantage? The estimated loading time on the bottom of the
> screen is exactly the same for both versions. The CSS isn't any easier or
> faster to work with, and you have to be careful about long, unbreakable
> words. If you have one, and the reader enlarges the font, the right-hand
> column will go crashing to the bottom of the page.
>
> With tables, you might get something ugly and mashed-up, but it won't
> destroy your layout. It took me quite a while to find the long,
> unbreakable
> word because the right-hand column had gone down to the bottom, whereas
> with
> a table I could have spotted it right away. I couldn't find any fix for
> this
> on the web.
>
> So I found a disadvantage but no advantage. Am I missing something?
>
> Wally S
>
>

Thanks, Mark,

It's nice to know I don't have to go around feeling like a dinosaur. I do
most of my formatting with CSS, but I think that for basic layout, tables
are more solid and reliable. We'll see what the future brings.

Wally S


"Mark Fitzpatrick" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> Wally,
> Basically, it's more a matter of style and elegance. Tables are
> messy, non-efficient, but they work like a charm if you know how to use
them
> right. CSS is the "way to go", though I would tack an eventually onto
that.
> I like CSS, but not for doing layouts. Tables, although they're not very
> elegant work nicely and their behavior is well understood. CSS positioning
> also works, but has it's own set of quirks across multiple browsers,
> especially for sites that have to support users that haven't (don't) want
to
> upgrade. I still see plenty of users with old versions of Navigator
hanging
> around and are just too stubborn to upgrade to a new browser.
>
> I would agree with you that a lot of things are easier to spot
with
> tables and, they usually make our job easier in the end.
>
> Hope this helps,
> Mark Fitzpatrick
> Microsoft MVP - FrontPage
>
> "Wally S" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> >I have read stuff here and on the internet about the benefits of laying
out
> > with CSS instead of tables, so I decided to try it out. I copied one of
my
> > pages laid out with tables and created an identical page using CSS. It
was
> > easy because it was a simple two-column layout.
> >
> > But what's the advantage? The estimated loading time on the bottom of
the
> > screen is exactly the same for both versions. The CSS isn't any easier
or
> > faster to work with, and you have to be careful about long, unbreakable
> > words. If you have one, and the reader enlarges the font, the right-hand
> > column will go crashing to the bottom of the page.
> >
> > With tables, you might get something ugly and mashed-up, but it won't
> > destroy your layout. It took me quite a while to find the long,
> > unbreakable
> > word because the right-hand column had gone down to the bottom, whereas
> > with
> > a table I could have spotted it right away. I couldn't find any fix for
> > this
> > on the web.
> >
> > So I found a disadvantage but no advantage. Am I missing something?
> >
> > Wally S
> >
> >
>
>

I think that CSS-P is not easy to learn and because I'll be retiring fairly
soon, I'm not going to bother. If I were younger I would feel more compelled
to learn it.
Eleanor
"Wally S" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:%(E-Mail Removed)...
> Thanks, Mark,
>
> It's nice to know I don't have to go around feeling like a dinosaur. I do
> most of my formatting with CSS, but I think that for basic layout, tables
> are more solid and reliable. We'll see what the future brings.
>
> Wally S
>
>
> "Mark Fitzpatrick" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:(E-Mail Removed)...
>> Wally,
>> Basically, it's more a matter of style and elegance. Tables are
>> messy, non-efficient, but they work like a charm if you know how to use
> them
>> right. CSS is the "way to go", though I would tack an eventually onto
> that.
>> I like CSS, but not for doing layouts. Tables, although they're not very
>> elegant work nicely and their behavior is well understood. CSS
>> positioning
>> also works, but has it's own set of quirks across multiple browsers,
>> especially for sites that have to support users that haven't (don't) want
> to
>> upgrade. I still see plenty of users with old versions of Navigator
> hanging
>> around and are just too stubborn to upgrade to a new browser.
>>
>> I would agree with you that a lot of things are easier to spot
> with
>> tables and, they usually make our job easier in the end.
>>
>> Hope this helps,
>> Mark Fitzpatrick
>> Microsoft MVP - FrontPage
>>
>> "Wally S" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>> news:(E-Mail Removed)...
>> >I have read stuff here and on the internet about the benefits of laying
> out
>> > with CSS instead of tables, so I decided to try it out. I copied one of
> my
>> > pages laid out with tables and created an identical page using CSS. It
> was
>> > easy because it was a simple two-column layout.
>> >
>> > But what's the advantage? The estimated loading time on the bottom of
> the
>> > screen is exactly the same for both versions. The CSS isn't any easier
> or
>> > faster to work with, and you have to be careful about long, unbreakable
>> > words. If you have one, and the reader enlarges the font, the
>> > right-hand
>> > column will go crashing to the bottom of the page.
>> >
>> > With tables, you might get something ugly and mashed-up, but it won't
>> > destroy your layout. It took me quite a while to find the long,
>> > unbreakable
>> > word because the right-hand column had gone down to the bottom, whereas
>> > with
>> > a table I could have spotted it right away. I couldn't find any fix for
>> > this
>> > on the web.
>> >
>> > So I found a disadvantage but no advantage. Am I missing something?
>> >
>> > Wally S
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>
>

Hi Wally,

I agree with you - my own method is to stick one simple 2 or 3 column table
on the page and then style the content with CSS, this is quick to design,
easy to maintain and bomb-proof all the way back to NN4. I see some of the
CSS "gurus" saying thngs like tables are only for tabular data, and even
using tables for layout is plain wrong - but I've never actually seen a
real business benifit to using CSS for layout. If I saw one benifit I'd
switch tommorow - the way things are going though that may be a long wait
:-)

--
Cheers,
Jon
Microsoft MVP

"Wally S" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:%(E-Mail Removed)...
> Thanks, Mark,
>
> It's nice to know I don't have to go around feeling like a dinosaur. I do
> most of my formatting with CSS, but I think that for basic layout, tables
> are more solid and reliable. We'll see what the future brings.
>
> Wally S
>
>
> "Mark Fitzpatrick" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:(E-Mail Removed)...
>> Wally,
>> Basically, it's more a matter of style and elegance. Tables are
>> messy, non-efficient, but they work like a charm if you know how to use
> them
>> right. CSS is the "way to go", though I would tack an eventually onto
> that.
>> I like CSS, but not for doing layouts. Tables, although they're not very
>> elegant work nicely and their behavior is well understood. CSS
>> positioning
>> also works, but has it's own set of quirks across multiple browsers,
>> especially for sites that have to support users that haven't (don't) want
> to
>> upgrade. I still see plenty of users with old versions of Navigator
> hanging
>> around and are just too stubborn to upgrade to a new browser.
>>
>> I would agree with you that a lot of things are easier to spot
> with
>> tables and, they usually make our job easier in the end.
>>
>> Hope this helps,
>> Mark Fitzpatrick
>> Microsoft MVP - FrontPage
>>
>> "Wally S" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>> news:(E-Mail Removed)...
>> >I have read stuff here and on the internet about the benefits of laying
> out
>> > with CSS instead of tables, so I decided to try it out. I copied one of
> my
>> > pages laid out with tables and created an identical page using CSS. It
> was
>> > easy because it was a simple two-column layout.
>> >
>> > But what's the advantage? The estimated loading time on the bottom of
> the
>> > screen is exactly the same for both versions. The CSS isn't any easier
> or
>> > faster to work with, and you have to be careful about long, unbreakable
>> > words. If you have one, and the reader enlarges the font, the
>> > right-hand
>> > column will go crashing to the bottom of the page.
>> >
>> > With tables, you might get something ugly and mashed-up, but it won't
>> > destroy your layout. It took me quite a while to find the long,
>> > unbreakable
>> > word because the right-hand column had gone down to the bottom, whereas
>> > with
>> > a table I could have spotted it right away. I couldn't find any fix for
>> > this
>> > on the web.
>> >
>> > So I found a disadvantage but no advantage. Am I missing something?
>> >
>> > Wally S
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>
>

Wally S,

I don't feel like a "dinosaur" and as long as tables are still supported (along with other HTML
tags) I will continue to use them, since they work. I see very little reason or benefit to use CSS
for the work that I do.

--
==============================================
Thomas A. Rowe (Microsoft MVP - FrontPage)
WebMaster Resources(tm)
http://www.ycoln-resources.com
FrontPage Resources, WebCircle, MS KB Quick Links, etc.
==============================================
If you feel your current issue is a results of installing
a Service Pack or security update, please contact
Microsoft Product Support Services:
http://support.microsoft.com
If the problem can be shown to have been caused by a
security update, then there is usually no charge for the call.
==============================================

"Wally S" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message news:%(E-Mail Removed)...
> Thanks, Mark,
>
> It's nice to know I don't have to go around feeling like a dinosaur. I do
> most of my formatting with CSS, but I think that for basic layout, tables
> are more solid and reliable. We'll see what the future brings.
>
> Wally S
>
>
> "Mark Fitzpatrick" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:(E-Mail Removed)...
>> Wally,
>> Basically, it's more a matter of style and elegance. Tables are
>> messy, non-efficient, but they work like a charm if you know how to use
> them
>> right. CSS is the "way to go", though I would tack an eventually onto
> that.
>> I like CSS, but not for doing layouts. Tables, although they're not very
>> elegant work nicely and their behavior is well understood. CSS positioning
>> also works, but has it's own set of quirks across multiple browsers,
>> especially for sites that have to support users that haven't (don't) want
> to
>> upgrade. I still see plenty of users with old versions of Navigator
> hanging
>> around and are just too stubborn to upgrade to a new browser.
>>
>> I would agree with you that a lot of things are easier to spot
> with
>> tables and, they usually make our job easier in the end.
>>
>> Hope this helps,
>> Mark Fitzpatrick
>> Microsoft MVP - FrontPage
>>
>> "Wally S" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>> news:(E-Mail Removed)...
>> >I have read stuff here and on the internet about the benefits of laying
> out
>> > with CSS instead of tables, so I decided to try it out. I copied one of
> my
>> > pages laid out with tables and created an identical page using CSS. It
> was
>> > easy because it was a simple two-column layout.
>> >
>> > But what's the advantage? The estimated loading time on the bottom of
> the
>> > screen is exactly the same for both versions. The CSS isn't any easier
> or
>> > faster to work with, and you have to be careful about long, unbreakable
>> > words. If you have one, and the reader enlarges the font, the right-hand
>> > column will go crashing to the bottom of the page.
>> >
>> > With tables, you might get something ugly and mashed-up, but it won't
>> > destroy your layout. It took me quite a while to find the long,
>> > unbreakable
>> > word because the right-hand column had gone down to the bottom, whereas
>> > with
>> > a table I could have spotted it right away. I couldn't find any fix for
>> > this
>> > on the web.
>> >
>> > So I found a disadvantage but no advantage. Am I missing something?
>> >
>> > Wally S
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>
>

FWIW;
I did a site in nothing but css (no tables) and it's probably the last time
for a while that I'll do it.

rather than engage in the debate as to which is better css or tables I'm a
proponent of using both. it gives you the "stability" of a table and all
those <td> tags and whatnot are perfect places to "class" or "ID". you'll
also find that you'll need a lot less "nesting" of tables by this method.

also, if you're interested in "tableless" design the best book I've found is
at www.sitepoint.com it's called HTML Utopia. it's a great book for .css
skill enhancement even if you don't intend to go "tableless".

HTH

--
Chris Leeds,
Microsoft MVP-FrontPage

ContentSeed: great tool for web masters,
a fantastic convenience for site owners.
http://contentseed.com/
--
"Wally S" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:#(E-Mail Removed)...
> Thanks, Mark,
>
> It's nice to know I don't have to go around feeling like a dinosaur. I do
> most of my formatting with CSS, but I think that for basic layout, tables
> are more solid and reliable. We'll see what the future brings.
>
> Wally S
>
>
> "Mark Fitzpatrick" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> > Wally,
> > Basically, it's more a matter of style and elegance. Tables are
> > messy, non-efficient, but they work like a charm if you know how to use
> them
> > right. CSS is the "way to go", though I would tack an eventually onto
> that.
> > I like CSS, but not for doing layouts. Tables, although they're not very
> > elegant work nicely and their behavior is well understood. CSS
positioning
> > also works, but has it's own set of quirks across multiple browsers,
> > especially for sites that have to support users that haven't (don't)
want
> to
> > upgrade. I still see plenty of users with old versions of Navigator
> hanging
> > around and are just too stubborn to upgrade to a new browser.
> >
> > I would agree with you that a lot of things are easier to spot
> with
> > tables and, they usually make our job easier in the end.
> >
> > Hope this helps,
> > Mark Fitzpatrick
> > Microsoft MVP - FrontPage
> >
> > "Wally S" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> > news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> > >I have read stuff here and on the internet about the benefits of laying
> out
> > > with CSS instead of tables, so I decided to try it out. I copied one
of
> my
> > > pages laid out with tables and created an identical page using CSS. It
> was
> > > easy because it was a simple two-column layout.
> > >
> > > But what's the advantage? The estimated loading time on the bottom of
> the
> > > screen is exactly the same for both versions. The CSS isn't any
easier
> or
> > > faster to work with, and you have to be careful about long,
unbreakable
> > > words. If you have one, and the reader enlarges the font, the
right-hand
> > > column will go crashing to the bottom of the page.
> > >
> > > With tables, you might get something ugly and mashed-up, but it won't
> > > destroy your layout. It took me quite a while to find the long,
> > > unbreakable
> > > word because the right-hand column had gone down to the bottom,
whereas
> > > with
> > > a table I could have spotted it right away. I couldn't find any fix
for
> > > this
> > > on the web.
> > >
> > > So I found a disadvantage but no advantage. Am I missing something?
> > >
> > > Wally S
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>

As Uncle Chutney would say, "It's six of one of half of one of half a dozen
of the other." But he wouldn't tell me WHY he would say that.

--
HTH,

Kevin Spencer
Microsoft MVP
..Net Developer
Ambiguity has a certain quality to it.

"Jon Spivey" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> Hi Wally,
>
> I agree with you - my own method is to stick one simple 2 or 3 column
> table on the page and then style the content with CSS, this is quick to
> design, easy to maintain and bomb-proof all the way back to NN4. I see
> some of the CSS "gurus" saying thngs like tables are only for tabular
> data, and even using tables for layout is plain wrong - but I've never
> actually seen a real business benifit to using CSS for layout. If I saw
> one benifit I'd switch tommorow - the way things are going though that may
> be a long wait :-)
>
> --
> Cheers,
> Jon
> Microsoft MVP
>
> "Wally S" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:%(E-Mail Removed)...
>> Thanks, Mark,
>>
>> It's nice to know I don't have to go around feeling like a dinosaur. I do
>> most of my formatting with CSS, but I think that for basic layout,
>> tables
>> are more solid and reliable. We'll see what the future brings.
>>
>> Wally S
>>
>>
>> "Mark Fitzpatrick" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>> news:(E-Mail Removed)...
>>> Wally,
>>> Basically, it's more a matter of style and elegance. Tables are
>>> messy, non-efficient, but they work like a charm if you know how to use
>> them
>>> right. CSS is the "way to go", though I would tack an eventually onto
>> that.
>>> I like CSS, but not for doing layouts. Tables, although they're not very
>>> elegant work nicely and their behavior is well understood. CSS
>>> positioning
>>> also works, but has it's own set of quirks across multiple browsers,
>>> especially for sites that have to support users that haven't (don't)
>>> want
>> to
>>> upgrade. I still see plenty of users with old versions of Navigator
>> hanging
>>> around and are just too stubborn to upgrade to a new browser.
>>>
>>> I would agree with you that a lot of things are easier to spot
>> with
>>> tables and, they usually make our job easier in the end.
>>>
>>> Hope this helps,
>>> Mark Fitzpatrick
>>> Microsoft MVP - FrontPage
>>>
>>> "Wally S" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>>> news:(E-Mail Removed)...
>>> >I have read stuff here and on the internet about the benefits of laying
>> out
>>> > with CSS instead of tables, so I decided to try it out. I copied one
>>> > of
>> my
>>> > pages laid out with tables and created an identical page using CSS. It
>> was
>>> > easy because it was a simple two-column layout.
>>> >
>>> > But what's the advantage? The estimated loading time on the bottom of
>> the
>>> > screen is exactly the same for both versions. The CSS isn't any
>>> > easier
>> or
>>> > faster to work with, and you have to be careful about long,
>>> > unbreakable
>>> > words. If you have one, and the reader enlarges the font, the
>>> > right-hand
>>> > column will go crashing to the bottom of the page.
>>> >
>>> > With tables, you might get something ugly and mashed-up, but it won't
>>> > destroy your layout. It took me quite a while to find the long,
>>> > unbreakable
>>> > word because the right-hand column had gone down to the bottom,
>>> > whereas
>>> > with
>>> > a table I could have spotted it right away. I couldn't find any fix
>>> > for
>>> > this
>>> > on the web.
>>> >
>>> > So I found a disadvantage but no advantage. Am I missing something?
>>> >
>>> > Wally S
>>> >
>>> >
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>

The more I hear about Uncle Chutney, the more worried I am about the
danger he presents to self and others...


"Kevin Spencer" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:%(E-Mail Removed)...
> As Uncle Chutney would say, "It's six of one of half of one of half a
dozen
> of the other." But he wouldn't tell me WHY he would say that.
>
> --
> HTH,
>
> Kevin Spencer
> Microsoft MVP
> .Net Developer
> Ambiguity has a certain quality to it.
>
> "Jon Spivey" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> > Hi Wally,
> >
> > I agree with you - my own method is to stick one simple 2 or 3
column
> > table on the page and then style the content with CSS, this is quick
to
> > design, easy to maintain and bomb-proof all the way back to NN4. I
see
> > some of the CSS "gurus" saying thngs like tables are only for
tabular
> > data, and even using tables for layout is plain wrong - but I've
never
> > actually seen a real business benifit to using CSS for layout. If I
saw
> > one benifit I'd switch tommorow - the way things are going though
that may
> > be a long wait :-)
> >
> > --
> > Cheers,
> > Jon
> > Microsoft MVP
> >
> > "Wally S" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> > news:%(E-Mail Removed)...
> >> Thanks, Mark,
> >>
> >> It's nice to know I don't have to go around feeling like a
dinosaur. I do
> >> most of my formatting with CSS, but I think that for basic layout,
> >> tables
> >> are more solid and reliable. We'll see what the future brings.
> >>
> >> Wally S
> >>
> >>
> >> "Mark Fitzpatrick" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> >> news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> >>> Wally,
> >>> Basically, it's more a matter of style and elegance.
Tables are
> >>> messy, non-efficient, but they work like a charm if you know how
to use
> >> them
> >>> right. CSS is the "way to go", though I would tack an eventually
onto
> >> that.
> >>> I like CSS, but not for doing layouts. Tables, although they're
not very
> >>> elegant work nicely and their behavior is well understood. CSS
> >>> positioning
> >>> also works, but has it's own set of quirks across multiple
browsers,
> >>> especially for sites that have to support users that haven't
(don't)
> >>> want
> >> to
> >>> upgrade. I still see plenty of users with old versions of
Navigator
> >> hanging
> >>> around and are just too stubborn to upgrade to a new browser.
> >>>
> >>> I would agree with you that a lot of things are easier to
spot
> >> with
> >>> tables and, they usually make our job easier in the end.
> >>>
> >>> Hope this helps,
> >>> Mark Fitzpatrick
> >>> Microsoft MVP - FrontPage
> >>>
> >>> "Wally S" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> >>> news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> >>> >I have read stuff here and on the internet about the benefits of
laying
> >> out
> >>> > with CSS instead of tables, so I decided to try it out. I copied
one
> >>> > of
> >> my
> >>> > pages laid out with tables and created an identical page using
CSS. It
> >> was
> >>> > easy because it was a simple two-column layout.
> >>> >
> >>> > But what's the advantage? The estimated loading time on the
bottom of
> >> the
> >>> > screen is exactly the same for both versions. The CSS isn't any
> >>> > easier
> >> or
> >>> > faster to work with, and you have to be careful about long,
> >>> > unbreakable
> >>> > words. If you have one, and the reader enlarges the font, the
> >>> > right-hand
> >>> > column will go crashing to the bottom of the page.
> >>> >
> >>> > With tables, you might get something ugly and mashed-up, but it
won't
> >>> > destroy your layout. It took me quite a while to find the long,
> >>> > unbreakable
> >>> > word because the right-hand column had gone down to the bottom,
> >>> > whereas
> >>> > with
> >>> > a table I could have spotted it right away. I couldn't find any
fix
> >>> > for
> >>> > this
> >>> > on the web.
> >>> >
> >>> > So I found a disadvantage but no advantage. Am I missing
something?
> >>> >
> >>> > Wally S
> >>> >
> >>> >
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
>
>

> The more I hear about Uncle Chutney, the more worried I am about the
> danger he presents to self and others...

Ah, he's quite a kindly old chap, actually. No more danger than Geppetto,
Albert Einstein, or Jerry Garcia!

--
;-),

Kevin Spencer
Microsoft MVP
..Net Developer
Ambiguity has a certain quality to it.

"David Baxter" <spam-(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> The more I hear about Uncle Chutney, the more worried I am about the
> danger he presents to self and others...
>
>
> "Kevin Spencer" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:%(E-Mail Removed)...
>> As Uncle Chutney would say, "It's six of one of half of one of half a
> dozen
>> of the other." But he wouldn't tell me WHY he would say that.
>>
>> --
>> HTH,
>>
>> Kevin Spencer
>> Microsoft MVP
>> .Net Developer
>> Ambiguity has a certain quality to it.
>>
>> "Jon Spivey" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>> news:(E-Mail Removed)...
>> > Hi Wally,
>> >
>> > I agree with you - my own method is to stick one simple 2 or 3
> column
>> > table on the page and then style the content with CSS, this is quick
> to
>> > design, easy to maintain and bomb-proof all the way back to NN4. I
> see
>> > some of the CSS "gurus" saying thngs like tables are only for
> tabular
>> > data, and even using tables for layout is plain wrong - but I've
> never
>> > actually seen a real business benifit to using CSS for layout. If I
> saw
>> > one benifit I'd switch tommorow - the way things are going though
> that may
>> > be a long wait :-)
>> >
>> > --
>> > Cheers,
>> > Jon
>> > Microsoft MVP
>> >
>> > "Wally S" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>> > news:%(E-Mail Removed)...
>> >> Thanks, Mark,
>> >>
>> >> It's nice to know I don't have to go around feeling like a
> dinosaur. I do
>> >> most of my formatting with CSS, but I think that for basic layout,
>> >> tables
>> >> are more solid and reliable. We'll see what the future brings.
>> >>
>> >> Wally S
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> "Mark Fitzpatrick" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>> >> news:(E-Mail Removed)...
>> >>> Wally,
>> >>> Basically, it's more a matter of style and elegance.
> Tables are
>> >>> messy, non-efficient, but they work like a charm if you know how
> to use
>> >> them
>> >>> right. CSS is the "way to go", though I would tack an eventually
> onto
>> >> that.
>> >>> I like CSS, but not for doing layouts. Tables, although they're
> not very
>> >>> elegant work nicely and their behavior is well understood. CSS
>> >>> positioning
>> >>> also works, but has it's own set of quirks across multiple
> browsers,
>> >>> especially for sites that have to support users that haven't
> (don't)
>> >>> want
>> >> to
>> >>> upgrade. I still see plenty of users with old versions of
> Navigator
>> >> hanging
>> >>> around and are just too stubborn to upgrade to a new browser.
>> >>>
>> >>> I would agree with you that a lot of things are easier to
> spot
>> >> with
>> >>> tables and, they usually make our job easier in the end.
>> >>>
>> >>> Hope this helps,
>> >>> Mark Fitzpatrick
>> >>> Microsoft MVP - FrontPage
>> >>>
>> >>> "Wally S" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>> >>> news:(E-Mail Removed)...
>> >>> >I have read stuff here and on the internet about the benefits of
> laying
>> >> out
>> >>> > with CSS instead of tables, so I decided to try it out. I copied
> one
>> >>> > of
>> >> my
>> >>> > pages laid out with tables and created an identical page using
> CSS. It
>> >> was
>> >>> > easy because it was a simple two-column layout.
>> >>> >
>> >>> > But what's the advantage? The estimated loading time on the
> bottom of
>> >> the
>> >>> > screen is exactly the same for both versions. The CSS isn't any
>> >>> > easier
>> >> or
>> >>> > faster to work with, and you have to be careful about long,
>> >>> > unbreakable
>> >>> > words. If you have one, and the reader enlarges the font, the
>> >>> > right-hand
>> >>> > column will go crashing to the bottom of the page.
>> >>> >
>> >>> > With tables, you might get something ugly and mashed-up, but it
> won't
>> >>> > destroy your layout. It took me quite a while to find the long,
>> >>> > unbreakable
>> >>> > word because the right-hand column had gone down to the bottom,
>> >>> > whereas
>> >>> > with
>> >>> > a table I could have spotted it right away. I couldn't find any
> fix
>> >>> > for
>> >>> > this
>> >>> > on the web.
>> >>> >
>> >>> > So I found a disadvantage but no advantage. Am I missing
> something?
>> >>> >
>> >>> > Wally S
>> >>> >
>> >>> >
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>
>