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)

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.

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/

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

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/ ?

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....

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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

Just an example there AlienQ:

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.

funniest thing said all year

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.

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!!!!

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. :winkwink:

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!

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.

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

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 :thumbsup

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)

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.

lol ouch

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?

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

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

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.

if i hit 1k in this thread, somebody is gonna PAY :mad:

edit: 150 SEMI-POINTLESS DEBATES!

Ok, it doesn't call up a "template" first off. It's a style sheet. And what style sheet is chosen via the linked media type in the header is a decision made by the BROWSER, not your server.

Please, I asked you to join your fellow retard friend Sortie in the tard yard.

http://www.w3.org/TR/CSS2/media.html
http://www.w3.org/TR/css3-reader/

read up on those.

OK, so when you get 1 millions surfers to the page with css on it the css only
loads once and not 1 millions times?


:1orglaugh


BUHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!


You are a fucking retard.

That's like saying that the 25k image only loads once so you can get a millions hits
and cache that image and only use 25k in bandwidth.


:1orglaugh

:1orglaugh

:1orglaugh

:1orglaugh

:1orglaugh


What a total fucking retard.

Once again you show your true stupidity.

It's cached LOCALLY meaning, IF YOU HIT THE PAGE TWICE, IT ONLY LOADS ONCE, WHEREAS THE TABLES LOAD TWICE.

Bigger for you:
IF YOU HIT THE PAGE TWICE, IT ONLY LOADS ONCE, WHEREAS THE TABLES LOAD TWICE.

I don't think you understand what he meant.....

Hey Retox!!

You just claimed that browsers don't cache tables.

:1orglaugh

Uhmm no...
Browser is going to display which one you tell it to.

Meaning ya want it to work with a PSP? Ya do a browser detect either server side or Java script then reference the template or Style sheet you wish it to use. CSS is not going to detect the browser for you.

Browsers no longer cash html....just CSS????


:1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh