15-08-2003 09:50									#31
	Increase the size of your Attachments

quote: Originally posted by Urban Ranger No it's not. Each browser tend to render tables differently, plus rendering complicated tables takes a very long time.

The problem is that you are ASSuming that anyone using tables is automatically using a bunch of nested tables. Not true.

quote: Now we know you are not speaking from experience.

Nope.

You want one page with a bunch of white space and a few easy to read tags?

Or you want a garbled WYSIWYG crap making reference to a bunch of CSS files.

Sorry, tables are still better, faster, and easier to edit.

That 10% of your audience you are alienating by going for the latest and greatest, is 10% too much.

	15-08-2003 09:52									#32
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

Simplicity is elegance and usability.

Minimalism.

	15-08-2003 09:54									#33
	Support Apolyton

word

	15-08-2003 09:57									#34
	Tired of ads?

quote: Originally posted by Ted Striker The problem is that you are ASSuming that anyone using tables is automatically using a bunch of nested tables. Not true.

No, I don't assume that. Even simple tables render slower than CSS, however.

quote: Originally posted by Ted Striker Nope. You want one page with a bunch of white space and a few easy to read tags? Or you want a garbled WYSIWYG crap making reference to a bunch of CSS files. Sorry, tables are still better, faster, and easier to edit. That 10% of your audience you are alienating by going for the latest and greatest, is 10% too much.

As I said, you have no idea what you are talking about.

Case in point: "one page with a bunch of white spaces and a few easy to read tags" (presumably related to tables mostly) does not translate into "a garbled WYSIWYG crap making reference to a bunch of CSS files." You need only one or two CSS statements for your page.

	15-08-2003 10:00									#35
	Increase Your PM Length

That's the dumbest thing I've ever heard!

	15-08-2003 10:00									#36
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

quote: Originally posted by Urban Ranger No, I don't assume that. Even simple tables render slower than CSS, however.

Of course, it's not like CSS is largely useless overhead to begin with.

The problem with CSS is it's more incompatible than HTML. IE's CSS differs from Mozilla's CSS differs from Opera's CSS.

HTML tables are far more standard.

	15-08-2003 10:01									#37
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

quote: Originally posted by Ted Striker That's the dumbest thing I've ever heard!

I've heard worse, from the same poster though.

	15-08-2003 10:02									#38
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

PHP:


if ((is_ie4up && is_mac) || (is_ie4up && is_win) || (is_nav6 && is_mac)){

    sheet = "/includes/css1.css";

    }

else {

    sheet = "/includes/css2.css";

    }

"Look Mom, I just painted Picasso with these TWO SIMPLE LINES!!!"

	15-08-2003 10:24									#39
	Tired of ads?

quote: Originally posted by Ted Striker That's the dumbest thing I've ever heard!

Clearly, you fail to counter my argument

	15-08-2003 10:26									#40
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

spacer.gif is still your friend.

	15-08-2003 10:26									#41
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

I don't think he needs to.

	15-08-2003 10:27									#42
	Remove this text

quote: Originally posted by Asher Of course, it's not like CSS is largely useless overhead to begin with.

Stop showing off your ignorance, Glonkie. There's no need to include any CSS statement that you don't need. Where's the overhead?

quote: Originally posted by Asher The problem with CSS is it's more incompatible than HTML. IE's CSS differs from Mozilla's CSS differs from Opera's CSS.

Just because IE doesn't support standard CSS doesn't mean other browsers don't.

	15-08-2003 10:29									#43
	Tired of ads?

quote: Originally posted by Asher I don't think he needs to.

Snooze.

Gratuitous use of smilies does not mask your (read: Ted Striker and Glonkie) ignorance in this area.

	15-08-2003 10:29									#44
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

quote: Originally posted by Urban Ranger Just because IE doesn't support standard CSS doesn't mean other browsers don't.

Reality check baby: 95% of web browsers are IE.

So what's the real world standard -- IE or paper standards?

	15-08-2003 10:31									#45
	Support Apolyton

quote: Originally posted by Urban Ranger Snooze. Gratuitous use of smilies does not mask your (read: Ted Striker and Glonkie) ignorance in this area.

You just said CSS renders faster than a simple HTML table -- that more than invalidates everything you ever say on the matter of web development.

CSS is more flexible, usually requires less code, but a downside of this is it does have more processing overhead -- it needs to translate the "less code" into the same thing as the more explicit HTML tables.

	15-08-2003 10:33									#46
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

Exactly, so why not cut out the step and just put the explicit HTML code in the first place.

I do like an occasional inline CSS tag for things like font formatting. But in terms of placement HTML is the way to go.

CSS has "been the future" for years now. But people still use the tried and true HTML.

	15-08-2003 10:34									#47
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

Saying CSS is faster than HTML is like saying C++ is faster than x86...

	15-08-2003 10:35									#48
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

good analogy

	15-08-2003 10:43									#49
	Increase Your PM Length

If you're able to make a nice looking page with just tables then more power to you. I don't really care when I'm visiting pages how they're set up so long as they're functional.

However, I personally find that positioning with CSS is easier for complex layouts than strictly using tables. I use tables for simple things on my website still, for when I want my data to appear in table formats (gasp).

	15-08-2003 14:21									#50
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: You want one page with a bunch of white space and a few easy to read tags? Or you want a garbled WYSIWYG crap making reference to a bunch of CSS files.

you really have no idea what you are referring to.

CSS is exactly the thing to replace grabled WYSIWYG crap, using dozens of P , FONT, IMG src="/forums/spacer.gif", TABLE inside TABLE tags.

If you use dozens of css tags you have obviously failed to use classes or labels.

	15-08-2003 14:23									#51
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

And there is no way that complex pages (web portals for instance) (or even this page) are 'easy to read' when they employ tons of useless tables.

	16-08-2003 00:52									#52
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

Is render time even an issue now with today's processor speeds?

Which one yields a smaller file size?

	16-08-2003 01:00									#53
	Increase the size of your Attachments

css is gorgeous.

so is xhtml and php.

you weren't using it before?

	18-08-2003 10:58									#54
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

quote: Originally posted by Asher Reality check baby: 95% of web browsers are IE. So what's the real world standard -- IE or paper standards?

The real world stardard is what leading web designers use - which surely ain't the IE crap.

	18-08-2003 11:02									#55
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

quote: Originally posted by Urban Ranger The real world stardard is what leading web designers use - which surely ain't the IE crap.

So leading web designers don't design their pages to render in IE. Is that correct?

	18-08-2003 11:03									#56
	Inflate your Upload Space

quote: Originally posted by Asher You just said CSS renders faster than a simple HTML table -- that more than invalidates everything you ever say on the matter of web development.

Yes it does. As I pointed out, you need just one or two CSS statements to put a diplay element where you want it to be.

quote: Originally posted by Asher CSS is more flexible, usually requires less code, but a downside of this is it does have more processing overhead -- it needs to translate the "less code" into the same thing as the more explicit HTML tables.

What processing overhead?

The processing overhead comes from repeatedly using tables to do layouts. Every time you need to place an element, you have to go through the whole ritual. OTOH, once a style is defined under CSS, it can be used anywhere.

Where's the overhead?

	18-08-2003 11:06									#57
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

quote: Originally posted by Asher Saying CSS is faster than HTML is like saying C++ is faster than x86...

Once again Glonkie brazenly displays his utter ignorance in this area. Good work.

	18-08-2003 11:08									#58
	Full PM-box? Change here!

quote: Originally posted by Urban Ranger Yes it does. As I pointed out, you need just one or two CSS statements to put a diplay element where you want it to be. What processing overhead? The processing overhead comes from repeatedly using tables to do layouts. Every time you need to place an element, you have to go through the whole ritual. OTOH, once a style is defined under CSS, it can be used anywhere. Where's the overhead?

WTF? Do you even think about this?

You can do in one or two Java lines what it takes in 12-24 x86 lines, but which is going to be faster?

Do you comprehend what kind of parsing goes on on the browser side when you feed it only a few "simple" CSS commands and let it figure the details out?

	18-08-2003 11:08									#59
	Get a bigger avatar today!

quote: Originally posted by Asher So leading web designers don't design their pages to render in IE. Is that correct?

Yes, in fact. Check out what Eric Meyer says.

They need to go through loops to make things render in IE, then MS would come to the rescue by bushwacking their workarounds.

	18-08-2003 11:09									#60
	Increase Your PM Length

quote: Originally posted by Urban Ranger Yes, in fact.

Oh...my...God.

Words cannot describe the depths of your stupidity.

I'm so amazed that you seem to think pretty highly of yourself when it comes to technology, but just about every technology thread you post in, you are severely misinformed or misguided, or generally confused. It's like you're in your own little world...