Why do you prefer Tableless CSS markup?

[Voodoo]

My Dad can beat up your Dad!

;-P

[FlexxAeon]

I wrote tubecgi ok. It crawls hosted galleries just like a search engine.
It dose not have, I did not write and I did not care if the gallery has tables or css.

It has nothing to do with the crawl.


A search engine crawl looks for text that is not included within tags ( > hello < )
Notice how I don't even give a shit what tag it is.

The search term for that page is now "hello".

....

I understand that FULLY but as i said above, that is still INFORMATION that would need to be processed. are we saying now that a SE has eyeballs and is reading the page? or that all SE indexing is done by hand? 1's and 0's are still 1's and 0's.... am i wrong?

[potter]

So now this conversation has changed from table controled layout to font and text control in Mobile Display devices? You CSS fan boi's are reaching way to hard.

Listen...
Ya want to restructure a page easily sure no prob you can do the same thing with table based layouts. Table Based Layouts are templates as well. You should know this.

No, it's not just font and text control. Media type allows you to specify an entirely different style sheet based on the type of browser that is rendering it. By switching an entirely different style sheet you can inherently change the entire site.

You could create a horizontal layout that is designed for 1500px wide. But if a mobile device is browsing it, the site could be changed to a vertical 200px wide layout with less graphics and smaller element file sizes.

That's just ONE possibility.

[NickPapageorgio]

How much can I make a day on a 50K tgp?

[FlexxAeon]

this is the first time i read a thread about code and laughed until my side hurt

...unless it was a PHP vs. ASP thread.... those get ugly

[AlienQ - BANNED FOR LIFE]

No, it's not just font and text control. Media type allows you to specify an entirely different style sheet based on the type of browser that is rendering it. By switching an entirely different style sheet you can inherently change the entire site.

You could create a horizontal layout that is designed for 1500px wide. But if a mobile device is browsing it, the site could be changed to a vertical 200px wide layout with less graphics and smaller element file sizes.

That's just ONE possibility.

And this can not be done with Tables for some reason? LOL!

Dude. One can always detect browser type and refer a specific layout template whether it is CSS or Tables. I do not think I can debate this with you anymore. The conversation is boring me and getting beyond stupid. You are like a punk ass Pig headed Redneck that insists the best way to kill a chicken is only with the newest knife in the house...

I am a developer that goes for killing the chicken, thats what the client wants I can care two shits about the newest knife to do it with as long as when the chicken is served it's good and tasty.

[Voodoo]

this is the first time i read a thread about code and laughed until my side hurt

...unless it was a PHP vs. ASP thread.... those get ugly

PHP can beat up ASP.

[cardinalvices]

Phew... Well, thanks for the input everyone. Just trying to better understand all aspects of the game.

[Voodoo]

how much can i make a day on a 50k tgp?

$1.00!!!!!!!!!

[fris]

p0tter just drop it this is Alienq you are talking too, the guy who uses 1 image with an imagemap for a site.

Have you seen his coding abilities?

I know blind people that can code better.

The guy is worse at photoshop than my 3 year old cousin.

[FlexxAeon]

PHP can beat up ASP.

[AlienQ - BANNED FOR LIFE]

p0tter just drop it this is Alienq you are talking too, the guy who uses 1 image with an imagemap for a site.

Have you seen his coding abilities?

I know blind people that can code better.

The guy is worse at photoshop than my 3 year old cousin.

Yeah but only you would sell a flat screen monitor to people who only read Brail. Hows your beastiality site going loser?

[Sands]

#css .designers {
    border: none;
}

If you don't know, now you know, nigga.

[itto]

Heck, just make sure your design works in every browser, ranks well and converts your surfers. There's no masterplan how to achieve this (as in: "1) use only css.. 2) rank 1st.. 3) profit..").

[Fletch XXX]

Why does everything here have to be a debate?

because when you say things like "harder for SE's to understand." you set yourself up for it. LOL

[Klen]

Toomuch to read,so i will just say i more preffer css then tables beacuse it make html file much smaller and i am sure images lost faster then.With css i can put border on all images with just one tag while with tables i need to constatly repeat code where i want to put border.

[psili]

Phew... Well, thanks for the input everyone. Just trying to better understand all aspects of the game.

CSS allows you to better separate your information from the presentation. Better separation allows you more freedom. If you're putting together some massive rave flyer type design into an HTML page... use what you want as it's all presentation. If you have data that you'd like to present in various ways, use CSS.

A lot of designers have no clue about function. A lot of developers have no clue about design. Thus you get fun threads like this one.

[Bro Media - BANNED FOR LIFE]

CSS has to be pulled from a file on every page in order to do what you said(site wide update).
That's a additional server request for each page.
But you can skip that and write a simple script that uses a template to update all the
pages in one click but those pages don't need the extra CSS file request and thus
saves on a lot of server resources on a heavy traffic site.

Please remove yourself from this thread, this bit right here just threw any credibility you THOUGHT you had about anything out the fucking window. No wonder your script failed and phatservers booted you, you know NOTHING.

Using a .css file is NOT over head, it loads the file ONCE unless it has been updated since its last checking, and then every time you visit that page, that css file is loaded again from YOUR local temp files, NOT from the server, unlike tables which are loaded on EVERY page view.

[potter]

And this can not be done with Tables for some reason? LOL!

Nope it cannot be done with tables. You need either just simple CSS, or some programming.

[mrkris]

Please remove yourself from this thread, this bit right here just threw any credibility you THOUGHT you had about anything out the fucking window. No wonder your script failed and phatservers booted you, you know NOTHING.

Using a .css file is NOT over head, it loads the file ONCE unless it has been updated since its last checking, and then every time you visit that page, that css file is loaded again from YOUR local temp files, NOT from the server, unlike tables which are loaded on EVERY page view.

Browser Cache FTW.

[harvey]

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)

[AlienQ - BANNED FOR LIFE]

Nope it cannot be done with tables. You need either just simple CSS, or some programming.

Yes it can be done with fucking tables you moron.
DO you even make websites or do you just talk stupid shit all the time?>

This kind of shit was done with tables long before CSS was even fucking born.

[TheSenator]

CSS has been a standard when I design a site.

CSS is so much easier to update across a large site with thousands of pages.

Wordpress and CSS has come so far.
I love this grid system
http://960.gs/

[potter]

Yes it can be done with fucking tables you moron.
DO you even make websites or do you just talk stupid shit all the time?>

This kind of shit was done with tables long before CSS was even fucking born.

Show me the code - pure html/tables. Without CSS or programming. That will change a site completely when viewed in different browsers.

[psili]

Yes it can be done with fucking tables you moron.
DO you even make websites or do you just talk stupid shit all the time?>

This kind of shit was done with tables long before CSS was even fucking born.

Do you have any examples of ONE html page put together with tables that can change to the extent of the ONE html page at http://csszengarden.com/ ?

[version5]

Hehe, you guys are funny. You sit here and love on DW yet your own sites aren't compliant and have basic html mistakes on them.

DW may allow you more control than it once did. But you still are using its standard, learning its styles of setup. Rather than the real way of doing it.

I don't use notepad, I use notepad2 or do it in shell.

I believe people were discussing that their sites are still able to be w3c compliant and then u moan at them for using dreamweaver?

Check out your site through the w3c validator - http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http://thedocblog.com oh and your style sheet - http://jigsaw.w3.org/css-validator/v...thedocblog.com

Thanks
Version5
P.S. My sites dont validate either, oh well not to concerned....

[AlienQ - BANNED FOR LIFE]

Show me the code - pure html/tables. Without CSS or programming. That will change a site completely when viewed in different browsers.

Dude.. Why? Why?

All ya goto do is Browser detection and refer the appropriate template.

Browser detection can be done 1 of two ways.

Server side, or using Javascript.
Both of which will direct the user to the appropriate template.

And guess what the best part about it is? The best part is that a base Table layout will be more reliable in terms of structure control.

[StuartD]

Dude.. Why? Why?

All ya goto do is Browser detection and refer the appropriate template.

Browser detection can be done 1 of two ways.

Server side, or using Javascript.
Both of which will direct the user to the appropriate template.

So your solution to not using CSS is to create multiple entirely different versions of the site and have javascript or an apache mod detect the browser and forward them accordingly??

That sounds practical.

[psili]

CSS has been a standard when I design a site.

CSS is so much easier to update across a large site with thousands of pages.

Wordpress and CSS has come so far.
I love this grid system
http://960.gs/

That looks something like
http://github.com/joshuaclayton/blue...css/wikis/home

[AlienQ - BANNED FOR LIFE]

So your solution to not use CSS is to create multiple entirely different versions of the site??

That sounds practical.

Ya goto do the same thing with CSS. If you are gonna have page control cross platform you need different templates and those templates whether done in CSS or Tabled design is irrelevant.
Thing is this is so non important, I can hardly think of any sites in the world that are so important to require such redundancy in page display...

This element of discussion is moot, but when someone says CSS is better than Tables because CSS does not require multiple templates proves the person saying so is a fucking moron that is choosing to put out misinformation regarding the facts between the two methods.

Throw in even more dipshits that have no clue and ya get a thread like this.

[StuartD]

Ya goto do the same thing with CSS.
Thing is this is so non important, I can hardly think of any sites in the world that are so important to require such redundancy in page display...

Which again proves this discussion is for morons.

Hardly.
I can have the same HTML template load up 2 CSS files of about 500-1200 bytes each.
One with media='screen' and one with media='mobile' and it'll load accordingly.

That's a far cry from having 2 entirely different versions of the site.... especially if you have a site with dozens to hundreds of html files.

[FlexxAeon]

Next worthy debate: PNG vs GIF for image transparencies! GO!!!

[potter]

Just an example there AlienQ:

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">

<html>

<head>

<title>omg teh css are awsomze</title>

<link href="browser.css" rel="stylesheet" type="text/css"  media="screen">
<link href="cellphone.css" rel="stylesheet" type="text/css"  media="handheld">

</head>

<body>

<div id="this">some content here</div>

</body>

</html>

Now, in browser.css we have this.
#this {width: 2500px; height: 500px; background: url('someimage.jpg'); font: 16px; }
* A horizontal website

Now in cellphone.css we have this.
#this { position: absolute; top: 0px; left: 0px; width: 200px; height: 200px; overflow: scroll; font: 10px; }
*A smaller top left aligned scrolling vertical website with no images and smaller font.



This is done with JUST css. No hacks, no special shit. Not to mention we're going extremely basic with the changes to each version.

[fris]

funniest thing said all year

I am a developer

[Bro Media - BANNED FOR LIFE]

Ya goto do the same thing with CSS.
Thing is this is so non important, I can hardly think of any sites in the world that are so important to require such redundancy in page display...

This element of discussion is moot, but when someone says CSS is better than Tables because CSS does not require multiple templates proves the person saying so is a fucking moron that is choosing to put out misinformation regarding the facts between the two methods.

Throw in even more dipshits that have no clue and ya get a thread like this.

Please take a seat over to the left with your pal Sortie in the tard yard.

You're completely fucking mental...

body {
width: 300px; /* standard compliant browser width */
*width: 299px; /* all the other browsers */
}

is alot better then 300 different pages loading differently via php/apache browser redirect.

[potter]

Dude.. Why? Why?

All ya goto do is Browser detection and refer the appropriate template.

Browser detection can be done 1 of two ways.

Server side, or using Javascript.
Both of which will direct the user to the appropriate template.

And guess what the best part about it is? The best part is that a base Table layout will be more reliable in terms of structure control.

Javascript is programming.

Plus, in order to create what would look like an entirely different site. You'd have to code two different versions of a table based layout and load each one accordingly. With CSS, you're only loading a different style sheet. And there's no coding involved!!!!

[Voodoo]

http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http://www.google.com

[harvey]

Next worthy debate: PNG vs GIF for image transparencies! GO!!!

[potter]

Next worthy debate: PNG vs GIF for image transparencies! GO!!!

PNG all the way. IE6 may not like them, but it's almost a decade old. And there is JS fixes to make IE6 render PNGs.

[AlienQ - BANNED FOR LIFE]

Just an example there AlienQ:

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">

<html>

<head>

<title>omg teh css are awsomze</title>

<link href="browser.css" rel="stylesheet" type="text/css"  media="screen">
<link href="cellphone.css" rel="stylesheet" type="text/css"  media="handheld">

</head>

<body>

<div id="this">some content here</div>

</body>

</html>

Now, in browser.css we have this.
#this {width: 2500px; height: 500px; background: url('someimage.jpg'); font: 16px; }
* A horizontal website

Now in cellphone.css we have this.
#this { position: absolute; top: 0px; left: 0px; width: 200px; height: 200px; overflow: scroll; font: 10px; }
*A smaller top left aligned scrolling vertical website with no images and smaller font.



This is done with JUST css. No hacks, no special shit. Not to mention we're going extremely basic with the changes to each version.

Yeah but those lines mean nothing without Detection in either server side or Javascript!

FUCKKKKK! You people are fucking DUMBBBBBB!
CSS is not going to Magically call up a template without being instructed to do so by server side or fucking Java Script. CSS is not going to magically slip in the right Template because you reference it you fucking MORON!

[NinjaSteve]

In my opinion, if you have to edit a site with multiple pages, instead of editing pages you can edit 1-2 lines or sections of a CSS file and see the changes on all pages. That's nice, but it's not often I want to change the layout besides colors, text size, image effects.

[FlexxAeon]

Hardly.
I can have the same HTML template load up 2 CSS files of about 500-1200 bytes each.
One with media='screen' and one with media='mobile' and it'll load accordingly.

That's a far cry from having 2 entirely different versions of the site.... especially if you have a site with dozens to hundreds of html files.

word, i made a quick & dirty "adjusting" video gallery with 4 screenshots. on web browsers it lines up the screen shots 2 x 2. if you're on a iphone, it adds one line of CSS code, scales a few design images, and screenshots are lined up in 1 x 4. gave me a CSS boner.

if those screenshots were in table cells... i dunno

[harvey]

My Dad can beat up your Dad!

;-P

that was rude, my dad is on a wheelchair and his name is Stephen Hawkins, you shouldn't make fun of him. But my uncle The Rock will kick your butt

[Voodoo]

Next worthy debate: PNG vs GIF for image transparencies! GO!!!

GIF for flat colors and simple shapes w/ transparency. (As long as the edges don't get mucked with the matte color).

PNG for all gradient transparencies. (Gotta do the PNG fix though, so older retarded IE browsers can see it properly)

[Bro Media - BANNED FOR LIFE]

I think that the quantum physics of 3 squirrels running in a field after a pineapple is half the size of a chicken stuffed goat lamb turkey basted cow.

[FlexxAeon]

PNG all the way. IE6 may not like them, but it's almost a decade old. And there is JS fixes to make IE6 render PNGs.

lol ouch

[potter]

Yeah but those lines mean nothing without Detection in either server side or Javascript!

FUCKKKKK! You people are fucking DUMBBBBBB!
CSS is not going to Magically call up a template without being instructed to do so by server side or fucking Java Script. CSS is not going to magically slip in the right Template because you reference it you fucking MORON!

Holy shit. Like... Wow. Holy fucking shit........

I'm utterly depressed I took the time to even debate with you. What the fuck are you doing on a webmaster forum?

[harvey]

me likes bitmaps. And if I go wild, maybe tiff or straight PSD, that's for real men though, not for cissies

[Voodoo]

I design everything in JPG2000. It's going to catch on one day soon!

[AlienQ - BANNED FOR LIFE]

Holy shit. Like... Wow. Holy fucking shit........

I'm utterly depressed I took the time to even debate with you. What the fuck are you doing on a webmaster forum?

Yer right ya should have just kept your pie hole shut and learned from experienced guys. You still have not explained to us how CSS is going to Magically call up the right template by itself.

SHow me.

<link href="browser.css" rel="stylesheet" type="text/css" media="screen">

Because that is not gonna do shit for nothing without instruction from another source or method to send the correct template.