|
I couldn't care less, I do what my clients want, if they want tables, there you go, if they want CSS2, there you go. Do you want both and want to load tables or CSS versions depending on browsers and still looking EXACTLY THE SAME? Sure thing.
This being said, I don't even get this discussion. Most of advanced CSS is impossible with tables, so right now the comparison only makes sense when speaking about extremely basic CSS against tables. Mid-level CSS sites are extremely difficult to achieve with tables. Advanced CSS sites are impossible to replicate with tables.
Think about it like this: if you want to remove a screw, it's the same to use a megatool set that includes a screwdriver than using a knife, you'll achieve the same result.
Now, if you want to build a car, you better have the mega tool set, because the knife will only hurt you.
Just one PS: CSS can (and should) look the same in every browser, if it doesn't, you're doing something wrong, it's not CSS fault.
And another PS: it's funny how everyone talking about CSS as a holy grail don't even mention XHTML, which is the real mega tool set I was talking about in which CSS is just a screwdriver. Let alone CSS2 and CSS3 (the last one still not compliant on every browser, but the day it does... wowzers)
__________________
This post is endorsed by CIA, KGB, MI6, the Mafia, Illuminati, Kim Jong Il, Worldwide Ninjas Association, Klingon Empire and lolcats. Don't mess around with it, just accept it and embrace the truth
|