...

View Full Version : Layout -- tables or divs



Kiwi
10-28-2002, 11:19 PM
I generally prefer to use sized divs for a page layout, but I have one problem, which means they don't see to work.

On a basic page layout, I normally have a side bar on the left, a main content section next to it, and a footer below it. The problem is I want to place the footer below the lower of the two side sections, each of vary in height, depending on the page content.

In a table, this is easy. You make the side and main content in one row, then the footer in the following row. With absolutely positioned divs, I can't work out how to do it.

Does anyone know a way to make it work?

dauvm
10-28-2002, 11:35 PM
a very good resoursce for css div layout.
http://glish.com/css/

-Doug

Spookster
10-29-2002, 12:30 AM
The phrase "If it ain't broke, don't fix it" comes to mind. :)

If tables have worked for you in the past why use positioned layers now?

Kiwi
10-29-2002, 08:53 AM
Originally posted by Spookster
If tables have worked for you in the past why use positioned layers now? Because I want to know how to make it work.

And, more importantly, tables don't inherit all css properties correctly (eg you need to re-specify the font-face for the table, whereas the div will inherit from the body tag). I'm using tables, because overall layout is more important than one or two formatting tweaks; but it'd be nice not to have that to worry about.

I think, from that link posted, it might be possible using margins on the divs. Let me see if I can make this work. :)

jkd
10-29-2002, 11:32 AM
Originally posted by Spookster
The phrase "If it ain't broke, don't fix it" comes to mind. :)

If tables have worked for you in the past why use positioned layers now?

Because you are never supposed to use tables for layout, and never were.

Spookster
10-29-2002, 02:16 PM
Originally posted by jkd


Because you are never supposed to use tables for layout, and never were.

Says who? They work great for layout. They are the foundation of most all sites.

dauvm
10-29-2002, 03:45 PM
says the internet gods :)

tables were never designed to be used for layout, only to hold data. A true layout system for the html wasn't designed until the <div> tag came about

Tables should be used to mark up truly tabular information ("data tables"). Content developers should avoid using them to lay out pages ("layout tables"). http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG10/#gl-table-markup

-Doug

res
10-29-2002, 04:05 PM
a very good resoursce for css div layout.
http://glish.com/css/

-Doug

Cheers for the link Doug, i have been looking for a site like this all my life (well a few weeks anyway)....

I have been looking to convert my departments website (http://www.cyber.rdg.ac.uk/) for a while now, this gives the best examples that i have seen....

Cheers,

Richard Sherwood :)

jkd
10-29-2002, 04:19 PM
Originally posted by Spookster
They are the foundation of most all sites.

And this is why the Internet is the inaccessible place that it is, full of proprietary presentational hacks and such.

redhead
10-29-2002, 04:41 PM
Originally posted by dauvm
a very good resoursce for css div layout.
http://glish.com/css/


wow... thats alot more helpful than i had expected it to be. i guess i'd better change my tables to <div>'s if this is the case... although i had always been in the illusion they were for positioning...

*deep thoughtfull "hmmmm.........." *

Spookster
10-29-2002, 05:52 PM
Originally posted by jkd


And this is why the Internet is the inaccessible place that it is, full of proprietary presentational hacks and such.

Well I've been using table layouts for 7 years now and all the sites that I have done are accessible and render exactly the same in all versions of all browsers.

The same cannot be said if you use positioned layers as all version of all browsers do not support layers in exactly the same way or have slight differences in rendering.

Reality check here guys.

As a professional web developer there is nothing wrong with using tables to layout a page.

dauvm
10-29-2002, 06:10 PM
Originally posted by Spookster

Well I've been using table layouts for 7 years now and all the sites that I have done are accessible and render exactly the same in all versions of all browsers.
All browsers huh? How about screen readers, braile readers? How do your table layouts degrade when tables are disabled? Is the information you want to show still in a logical order? If so, more power to ya ;) But chances are that what you think is "accessible" is really only accessible to the kind of browser that you are used to dealing w/. Blind people get the short end of the stick when it comes to the internet (more often than not). I recall in a post the other day that someone critisized the w3c's site for it's blandness... too true! but I think it serves as a very good example of accessiblity. You can turn off css, tables, images, javascript, even your mouse (blind people don't use "mouses?"), and THEN view that in greyscale (colorblindness), and you still get a 100% fuctional site... I think that's cool.

It takes forever and it's boring as hell, but you really do learn a lot if you read through the accessiblity guidelines in the w3c link above.

btw - I'm glad you all enjoyed that layout link, I found it particulary enlightening myself!

-Doug

Íkii
10-29-2002, 06:15 PM
Out of the 4 main browser creators (yup - counting moz and netscape as different entities), only opera doesn't use tables at all on their site.

I figure that if the sites for the main browsers are still using tables then I too am pretty safe doing the same.

Nice link to the css place - anyone else notice that they offer $3750 for each 'used' link that is submitted.

Spookster
10-29-2002, 06:34 PM
Originally posted by dauvm
All browsers huh? How about screen readers, braile readers? How do your table layouts degrade when tables are disabled? Is the information you want to show still in a logical order? If so, more power to ya ;) But chances are that what you think is "accessible" is really only accessible to the kind of browser that you are used to dealing w/. Blind people get the short end of the stick when it comes to the internet (more often than not). I recall in a post the other day that someone critisized the w3c's site for it's blandness... too true! but I think it serves as a very good example of accessiblity. You can turn off css, tables, images, javascript, even your mouse (blind people don't use "mouses?"), and THEN view that in greyscale (colorblindness), and you still get a 100% fuctional site... I think that's cool.

It takes forever and it's boring as hell, but you really do learn a lot if you read through the accessiblity guidelines in the w3c link above.

btw - I'm glad you all enjoyed that layout link, I found it particulary enlightening myself!

-Doug

Well actually screenreaders read table layouts just fine. However screen readers do not read layers very well. I am quite familiar with that technology and using the Bobby software to make a site compliant with screenreaders as I do quite a bit of web development for a university that requires the sites to be screen reader accessible. :)

So please get off your high horse now.

Just because you read something somewhere or hear something from someone does not mean that is factual. Have you had any actual experience with this? Or is that just what you read? Have you actually even used a screen reader? I have.

dauvm
10-29-2002, 08:01 PM
ok spooks, no hard feelings man.
" Is the information you want to show still in a logical order? If so, more power to ya "
The last thing I want to do is get in some internet **** fight... I was not trying to belittle you or your work... I'll rephrase... "...But chances are that what MOST PEOPLE think is "accessible" is really only accessible to the kind of browser that they are used to dealing w/"

btw, I have used a screen reader, and it handled tables well also, but I have read in numerous sources that older screen readers linearize tables... I'll take their work for it.

-Doug

P.S. I don't have a horse :rolleyes:

dauvm
10-29-2002, 08:03 PM
and when did I ever say anything about layers being any better??

cg9com
10-29-2002, 08:10 PM
Originally posted by Spookster


Says who? They work great for layout. They are the foundation of most all sites.

*agrees (tables)

beetle
10-29-2002, 08:12 PM
Somewhere in here there was a person with a question....

Kiwi...Did you get your problem solved? If not, I can probably help...

Spookster...no offense intended here, I respect your work. If I had been using tables for layout for 7 years, I would resist change too.

Anyone check out Wired's redesign? (http://www.wired.com)

I recently finished a working test page (http://www.peterbailey.net/new/test.htm) for my new site. It's all CSS layout (and XHTML to boot!)
Here (http://www.peterbailey.net/new/no_css.htm) is the EXACT same HTML save the stylesheets. So, you can see what my page SHOULD look like to a screenreader or any other non-CSS capable device.

If the above doesn't show you the advantages of CSS layout vs. table layout, then don't worry about it. Keep using tables.

Kiwi
10-30-2002, 12:08 PM
No, I didn't get it solved. The links posted were interesting, but you'll notice that none of the layouts have a footer at the bottom of the page -- which is what I want to achieve.

Any help would be much appreciated. Just to clarify, here's the code for tables:



<-- header here !->

<table style="border-collapse: collapse; border-width: 0px; width:700px">
<tr valign=top>
<td style="width:114px; text-align: center; border-collapse: collapse; background: #777b88">

<-- side menu here !->

</td>
<td style="width:588px; padding-left: 6px;">

<-- main content here !->

</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="signature" colspan=2;>

<-- footer here !->

</td>
</tr>
</table>This is hardly a complex layout, but I've not found out how to do it without using tables (I couldn't get nested divs to work, although I suspect that's the solution).

MCookie
10-30-2002, 12:31 PM
Something like this should do it. Just an example. There are other ways.

The "text-align:center" in the body tag is to center the div in Win/IE5. Win/IE5 doesn't understand "margin:auto".

The 'Main Contents' div with the padding is nested to avoid the box-model hack.

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Strict//EN" "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-strict.dtd">
<html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml" xml:lang="en">
<head>
<title>Untitled</title>
</head>
<body style="text-align:center;">
<div style="width:700px;margin:auto;">

<div style="float:left;width:114px;background:#777b88;">Side Menu</div>

<div style="float:right;width:586px;">
<div style="padding-left:6px;text-align:left;">Main contents</div>
</div>

<div style="clear:both;"></div>
<div>Footer here</div>
</div>
</body>
</html>

jkd
10-30-2002, 12:31 PM
<div style="clear: both;">the footer</div>

Before the ending </body> should suffice,

BrainJar
10-31-2002, 03:19 PM
The biggest problem with using tables for layout is that tables were never meant for that purpose. They were intended for displaying data in simple rows and columns.

Before CSS, designers found that they could manipulate tables to get the kind of layout they desired. However, it's not pretty. You often see tables nested three or four deep which can make maintenance a nightmare.

But CSS was designed to allow sophisticated layouts. Using it is much simpler and it can greatly reduce file sizes. Plus it's much easier to maintain and reuse across pages.

Spookster
10-31-2002, 03:51 PM
Originally posted by BrainJar
The biggest problem with using tables for layout is that tables were never meant for that purpose. They were intended for displaying data in simple rows and columns.

Before CSS, designers found that they could manipulate tables to get the kind of layout they desired. However, it's not pretty. You often see tables nested three or four deep which can make maintenance a nightmare.

But CSS was designed to allow sophisticated layouts. Using it is much simpler and it can greatly reduce file sizes. Plus it's much easier to maintain and reuse across pages.


I see that you use positioned layers for the layout of your site verses tables.

That's all fine and dandy but until all users of the web are using IE5+ and NS6+ then using positioned layers for layout instead of tables is not really wise unless of course you want to double your effort and make versions of your site for browsers that do not fully support CSS and all the properties of positioned layers.

For example here is what your site looks like in NS4.x:

http://www.designqueue.com/brainjar.gif

Completely unusable.

Kiwi
10-31-2002, 04:57 PM
The problem with tables is that they do not follow the same rules for cascading data as the divs do. To format anything within a table with CSS, I have to format the individual cells. They also don't pick up classed properly and are generally messy (one specific example: you have to put a td { font-size: nnpx } in your stylesheet, if you use tables. It doesn't pick up the font-size from the body style. There are other problems (you can't define margins correctly for paragraphs inside tables with external stylesheets -- meaning, once again, you have to define the paragraph properties on each element).

MCookie, that did work (including jkd's modification) -- thanks. I need a little tweaking, but I think I'll manage to get rid of all tables, unless they're actually needed for tabular data.

beetle
10-31-2002, 05:34 PM
Originally posted by Spookster
For example here is what your site looks like in NS4.x:

http://www.designqueue.com/brainjar.gif

Completely unusable. Good argument, Spookster, but not unbreakable. BrainJar should be using the @import command so he doesn't have that problem. My page (http://www.peterbailey.net/new/test.htm) should do it nicely.

However, it has become apparent to me that web-developers when viewed on the stance of CSS come in two flavors: Those who go for backwards compatibility, and those who go for fowards compatibility. You're just one of the backwards guys (no, NOT intended to be a pun :p)

Personally, I could care less for the 2% of users out there with Netscape 4.x. They can see my content which is all they need. I'm not going to compromise the majority of my user's experience so those 2% can see the site identically to how an IE6 or Moz1 user sees it. Just not worth the tradeoff, by a long shot.

dauvm
10-31-2002, 07:56 PM
Netscape 4.x = 1997
Today = 2002

why do we still care??? i am guilty too, for my last page i archived the old version for NN4 and then wrote the new page sans tables. I think that if yahoo and google and the big portal sites just went POOF into tabless layouts, that 2% of NN4 users would shrink to nothin in about 2 days... *sigh*

a funny page: http://www.scottandrew.com/ns4.html

-Doug

jtr
11-01-2002, 12:32 AM
Sorry to butt it on very interesting topic. Could someone suggest a screenreader that one could download for testing of ones website. (freeware hopefully)

Thanks

Spookster
11-01-2002, 01:16 AM
Originally posted by jtr
Sorry to butt it on very interesting topic. Could someone suggest a screenreader that one could download for testing of ones website. (freeware hopefully)

Thanks

Well you don't really need to download a screenreader. You can use the Bobby software which evaluates your pages to check for screenreader compatibility and tells you what needs to be changed:

http://bobby.watchfire.com/bobby/html/en/index.jsp

jtr
11-01-2002, 02:26 AM
Thanks Spookster,
Well you don't really need to download a screenreader. You can use the Bobby software which evaluates your pages to check for screenreader compatibility and tells you what needs to be changed:... Have been to that site. But would actually (sp?) like to hear what a page would sound like.

beetle
11-01-2002, 03:10 AM
Caught this link off scottandrew.com

Lynx Viewer (http://www.delorie.com/web/lynxview.html)

allida77
11-01-2002, 04:29 AM
Netscape 4.x = 1997 Today = 2002


Some of us have to care. If I was doing a personal site I could care less but at work internet sites have to be accessible to everyone. While staying up to date with every new standard is good it is not realistic for me to use them when I will have to write even more hacks for older browsers. On our intranet site I use divs and CSS all the time (ie5.5+), but with the internet IMHO it is an unneccessary use of time. I do not think it would fly with my PM if I was writing excessive code that could be avoided(writing hacks). I guess sometimes you need to develop your internet sites for your users not the W3C.


There is NOTHING wrong with using tables.

BrainJar
11-01-2002, 05:14 AM
True, my site isn't accesible to older browsers but that's not because it uses CSS for layout instead of tables. It's because I'm relying on many of the more advanced features of CSS, the DOM and JavaScript to create dynamic effects.

As far as the static portions of the pages, they could have been layed out exactly the same using tables but they would be nowhere near as flexible. Believe me, I've done plenty of pages both ways and I've found CSS to be much easier and more versitile.

As far as older browsers go, Netscape 4 is an anomaly. It's not that it doesn't support CSS, it does. But it does it incorrectly.

Spookster
11-01-2002, 06:01 AM
Originally posted by BrainJar
True, my site isn't accesible to older browsers but that's not because it uses CSS for layout instead of tables. It's because I'm relying on many of the more advanced features of CSS, the DOM and JavaScript to create dynamic effects.

As far as the static portions of the pages, they could have been layed out exactly the same using tables but they would be nowhere near as flexible. Believe me, I've done plenty of pages both ways and I've found CSS to be much easier and more versitile.

As far as older browsers go, Netscape 4 is an anomaly. It's not that it doesn't support CSS, it does. But it does it incorrectly.

I'm not disagreeing with you that layouts can be done easier or are more flexible using CSS and positioned layers. I agree that would be the best way to go. I would go that route if all users were using the latest browsers. In the world of business I can't eliminate a portion of potential customers because they are not using the right browser. My clients would also probably lose confidence in me if I told them that I will design a site for them but only users using these certain browsers will be able to view it the way it was meant to be viewed. Personally I would love to see NS4 be obliterated from use but unfortunately many users still use it. They are getting fewer as time goes fortunately. In the meantime tables are the way to go for crossbrowser compatibility.

Two years ago I met with a potential client that wanted to see some samples of my work. I brought a disk with me with demos of some sites that I had done using DHTML (designed for IE4+ and NS4+) and wouldn't you know it.....they were still using IE3. I looked on the computer for any other browsers and wouldn't you know it they had NS2 on there. lol This was only two years ago so you wouldn't believe just how many people still use very old browsers.

beetle
11-03-2002, 03:05 PM
Originally posted by Spookster
...you wouldn't believe just how many people still use very old browsers. You might also not believe how many of them understand the problem with a little education. I seriously doubt that the client you mention above was fully aware of IE4 and why it would be in his benefit to uprade, and that he purposely chose IE3 for whatever reasons might have existed. In my short 2 years of being in this business, I have yet to encounter a client who didn't understand my explanation, and further, was grateful for the acquisition of such knowledge. I consider my responsibility to inform users of the things we know, becuase if I did not, how would they find out? Just last week I saved a client $1000 that he was going to spend extra with another developer who did not relate to him this information. Not only did I save him money, but I got the job!

I'm not saying you don't ever do this, Spookster, but I think saying "My clients...lose confidence in me..." is a bit of a copout, because I've faced those feelings in my clients head on, and have never been reciprocated by anything but appreciaton and perhaps even a higher degree of respect/confidence in my abilities. I have had a few clients that say they want NS4 support, regardless of the new information. At that point, I refer them to someone else, because I am not qualified to make a sight work in NS4, I just simply haven't devoted my time to learning an old/obsolete user agent. And I don't regret it one bit.

degsy
11-03-2002, 03:20 PM
Sorry to add a late reply, but we've recently had this same discussion at Uni, where apparenty we should be designing sites without tables.

Even the http://w3.org index page uses a table for layout ;)

Here is a test page using methods i found in the devshed forums.
http://www.degs.co.uk/test/css/cssLayout3.htm

Thing is that it only displays correctly in IE (i have IE6).
It doesn't display correctly in NS6, NS7 or Moz1.0

Spookster
11-03-2002, 06:50 PM
It's not a copout as you say. Are you also going to find every user of your client's site and tell them to upgrade to a browser that will render correctly the site you design for your client? No.

Just off the top of my head let's look at major businesses or orgranzations who do use tables for layout:

www.microsoft.com
www.mozilla.org
www.apple.com

even the w3c themselves use tables for layout

www.w3c.org


nuff said...

dauvm
11-03-2002, 08:02 PM
A lot of people have pointed out that the major browser sites and yes, even the w3c site still uses tables. One thing that the w3c site says about using new "correct" methods is that they should be implemented when user agents have fully adopted the technique correctly. Now for most of us it's soon enough to exclude NN4 and feel secure in writing tabless layouts, but for these sites who are often visited by old browsers looking to upgrade, they realize that it's not soon enough for them.

I think beetle is right when he says that most of these people with really old browsers on their computers just don't know that they should upgrade.

-Doug

beetle
11-03-2002, 10:25 PM
Originally posted by Spookster
It's not a copout as you say. Are you also going to find every user of your client's site and tell them to upgrade to a browser that will render correctly the site you design for your client? No.Uh, actually, I do (http://www.lanwizards.com/upgrade.htm). (link down till Monday)
Just off the top of my head let's look at major businesses or orgranzations who do use tables for layout:

www.microsoft.com
www.mozilla.org
www.apple.com

even the w3c themselves use tables for layout

www.w3c.org


nuff said...Is it? What is the point of listing 4 websites that use tables for layout (regardless of scope, size, or popularity). Or even 100. Or a 1000. At this point in time, almost ALL websites use tables for layout. Listing of their urls does nothing to strengthen your point, but only serves to point out big sites that haven't yet made the jump, like Wired (http://www.wired.com) did, and the almost amusingly ironic nature of the W3C site.

I mentioned this before, but only breifly, so allow me to re-iterate with more detail. I will not compromise the experience and quality that my majority audience receives to satisfy the minority audience. That is just common sense, and in most cases, good business sense too. Why should my IE5, IE6, and NS6+ users be subjected to bloated code with tables, spacer gifs, and other tricks and hacks of the trade, so that I can also satisy an extremely small portion of my viewing audience? I just doesn't make sense, and the answer is, they shouldn't. Let the majority of my audience (well over 95%) see my site as I envisioned (http://www.peterbailey.net/new/test.htm), and the rest see a perfectly readable, albeit bland, version (http://www.peterbailey.net/new/no_css.htm). This saves me time, the client time and money, and makes the experience for the end user better (even if they are unaware of this fact). It's a win-win situation.

Vladdy
11-03-2002, 11:34 PM
Originally posted by Spookster
It's not a copout as you say. Are you also going to find every user of your client's site and tell them to upgrade to a browser that will render correctly the site you design for your client? No.


Why not??? The only reason people are still using outdated technology is that for some masochistic reason designers choose to support it....

Spookster
11-04-2002, 12:08 AM
I will not compromise the experience and quality that my majority audience receives to satisfy the minority audience. That is just common sense, and in most cases, good business sense too.

To exclude potential customers is not good business sense. Any expert in business will tell you that. But hey you can do whatever you want.

I never said YOU should use tables. My point is simply that tables are completely crossbrowser. If you wish to lose customers because they use an older browser then that is your business.

I choose to make sites that can be viewed by all, not just people using the latest browsers. Yes it might take more code but the difference in download speed is barely perceptible.

Spookster
11-04-2002, 12:11 AM
Originally posted by Vladdy


Why not??? The only reason people are still using outdated technology is that for some masochistic reason designers choose to support it....

You state that as if it were a fact. That is your opinion. In my experience people are still using outdated browsers for a few different reasons. One being some people just don't know anything about how the web works and use whatever came installed on their computer and do not realize they can download newer software nor even how to install it. Two being educational institutions and companies that do not allow installation of software on their systems and so those people are stuck with what is given to them. They are not using outdated browsers because designers choose to support them.

beetle
11-04-2002, 01:12 AM
Spookster

I really don't want to get into an argument here, am I'm attempting to stay as democratic as possible. Please take no personal offense to the things I have say, for I say them only for the purpose of this debate.

First off, no-one here that I know of is debating against the fact that tables are fully browser compatible. Although, they actually aren't. Since you made the point of singling out Microsoft.com, I'll re-use that ammunition here. Ever wondered what it looked like on Lynx (http://www.delorie.com/web/lynxview.cgi?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.microsoft.com)?? We have to remember these days, especially for the bigger sites that you like to use in example, that many more devices are and will be accessing the internet than home computers. This is part of the foward compatibility that I spoke of earlier.

You seem to have selective hearing (or, in this case, reading or memory). Did you heed nothing I said about the fact that NS4.x users can still see content on CSS laid out pages? Shoot, even NS1 and IE1 users can. Ok, so they don't see the pretty version, but at least they get the content. Yes, I agree with you that losing customers is bad business, but your definition is a one-dimensional approach that only satisfies itself. No business owner that I know of will spend $1000 on $500 worth of customers that won't exist in a year.

Regarding download speed: I agree. But is that the only consideration we must make toward authoring finessed HTML? What about monthly server bandwidth? For high traffic sites, a few kilobytes of HTML trimmed from every page can significantly reduce server-load, and, decrease the costs for the client. We all know how hosting providers use monthly data transfer as a criteria between price points. I helped a client with the HTML on his site, reducing average filesize by 30%, and consequently bumped his hosting plan down 1 rung on his hosting company's package ladder. He will recouperate my fees in less than 6 months on the monies saved from hosting. The site penny-arcade.com just moved to a new 10-server cluster, with separate servers for the database storage, they get that much traffice. As an exercise, I did a table-less (http://www.peterbailey.net/pa/) version of their homepage a while back, reducing the HTML filesize by half. With the number of monthly pageviews they get, it's hard to argue that changes of this nature would not benefit them. (Note: I left the table structure for their news posts in place)

jtr
11-04-2002, 01:53 AM
beetle,

IE 6 This is what I see.

Edit> That shot is at 800 x 600
at 1024 X 768 looks fine

Spookster
11-04-2002, 01:54 AM
Originally posted by beetle
Spookster

I really don't want to get into an argument here,



Well it seems to me that you are the one that keeps trying to argue.

In the start of this thread I said tables are perfectly fine for layouts of pages. Then a few people who do nothing but read the W3C manuals as if it were the bible itself stated that tables are not suppose to be used for layout.

And then you jump in and start waving around your opinion which is fine. You have a right to your opinion as well as I. You design YOUR sites however the hell you want to. I will design MY sites however the hell I want to.

But don't start stating your opinion as if it were 100% fact and people should only do as your opinion states. You keep bringin up petty and realistically insignificant basis' for your opinion. Download speed is not an issue when considering positioned content verses tables. Dude it's like a few miliseconds difference. Bandwidth? A few Kb's saved? Give me a break. Unless a site is pullion in like a billion hits a month a few Kb's saved is not even an issue considering a decent web host will give you several Gb's bandwidth per month. As far as saving the client money by not using extra code? Whatever. It doesn't take any more time to design a site with positioned content verses tables. I've done both. I've been in this business for 7 years.

And as I said before you do things the way you want and I will do things the way I want. There is no point in arguing. Enough said.

beetle
11-04-2002, 06:30 AM
Well, see, I'm not arguing, and I said that in hopes of not irritating you, in which capacity it seems I have failed. I apologize.

I suppose I just like a good debate more than most people here. This is the 2nd time that I can recall where I suppose I have gone too far in this forum. So, with all due respect, sincerest apologies all around.

With that, I'll sign off this post.

Cheers everyone :D



EZ Archive Ads Plugin for vBulletin Copyright 2006 Computer Help Forum