On Fri, 2007-04-13 at 10:16 -0400, tedd wrote: > At 3:17 AM -0400 4/13/07, Robert Cummings wrote: > >Dear Tedd, > > > >Please put me down for one pint of asshole, because while you sit on > >that glass pedestal of CSS superiority I can't help but notice how > >http://ancientstones.com/ looks completely fucked up in Opera. Opera I > >might add is ACID2 compliant. Now please go shove your "better than thou > >CSS up your ass" :) Trust me, I am at least as versed as you in CSS and > >choose to use tables. > > > >Cheers, > >Rob. > > > Dear Rob: > > It's not a question of "CSS superiority" -- but rather a matter of > best practice. You want to use a screw driver to drive a nail, then > fine -- but some of us do know better. I noticed your site isn't a pixel perfect layout. Probably why you haven't had to tear at your face very hard with CSS :) That whole box-model issue becomes a great deal more elastic when you have some fudge room. > You pointed out that my http://ancientstones.com was not appearing as > it should and you were right. I had made some minor changes and did > not check Opera. However, the fix was a single line of code and it > took me less than a minute to find it -- try that with tables. I use my templating engine, I can wrap as many tags as I please into a compound custom tag with attributes that expand into the dirty details. This also provides a great deal of flexibility later when CSS support improves, to replace the dirty tables ;) I do prefer CSS, but having done pixel perfect layouts, I know where things break down. > I'm not saying any of this because of any "better than thou" > attitude, but rather because it's true. If you don't want to consider > what I have to say, then fine, no skin off my nose. Ewwwwww... NOSE SKIN!!! :) > But I do know this, I listen to what you have to say about php > because you know what you're talking about. But in this case, my > friend, we differ greatly. You want to stick with tables then fine, You've got me wrong, I don't want to stick with tables, I want to use the full power of CSS, but unfortunately Microsoft has seen fit to screw everything up as much as possible. > but if you are as well versed as I am in CSS, then you know that > using tables for layout is more costly in overall development, > maintenance, sales, and accessibility. To me and my clients, those > things matter. I agree with accessibility to some degree, but for the rest I think you're a bit too far out on a limb. > Concepts like separating content from presentation, graceful > degradation and progressive enhancement are not just phrases one > imagined so they could sit on a glass pedestal and look down on > everyone else. They are practices that work and are far more reaching > than WYSIWYG table layouts. Agreed, I practice all of the above, but I feel no guilt in using a table for a layout when it simplifies the issue. Between box model issues, float bugs, etc etc, CSS just can't do what needs to be done yet. > tedd > > PS: Meant, or not, no offense taken -- I do enjoy your colorful manner. :-) No offense is ever meant, although I'll give you, I was quite drunk last night (I get 2 outings a year ;) and I used a little more colour than usual *heheh*. Cheers, Rob. -- .------------------------------------------------------------. | InterJinn Application Framework - http://www.interjinn.com | :------------------------------------------------------------: | An application and templating framework for PHP. Boasting | | a powerful, scalable system for accessing system services | | such as forms, properties, sessions, and caches. InterJinn | | also provides an extremely flexible architecture for | | creating re-usable components quickly and easily. | `------------------------------------------------------------' -- PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/) To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
