On Fri, April 20, 2007 9:20 am, Jochem Maas wrote:
> Jay Blanchard wrote:
>> [snip]
>> This site (http://www.soyatec.com/main.php) doesn't seem to use
>> table. At least a simple search of the "table" keyword in several
>> pages
>> has no result.
>> [/snip]
>>
>> The CSS is pretty compact too.
Jay Blanchard wrote:
> [snip]
> This site (http://www.soyatec.com/main.php) doesn't seem to use
> table. At least a simple search of the "table" keyword in several pages
> has no result.
> [/snip]
>
> The CSS is pretty compact too.
>
> BTW, I agree with what others said earlier, this discuss
[snip]
This site (http://www.soyatec.com/main.php) doesn't seem to use
table. At least a simple search of the "table" keyword in several pages
has no result.
[/snip]
The CSS is pretty compact too.
BTW, I agree with what others said earlier, this discussion is relevant
to PHP developers becau
Richard Lynch wrote:
> On Tue, April 17, 2007 10:15 pm, Paul Novitski wrote:
>
>> At 4/17/2007 07:53 PM, Robert Cummings wrote:
>>
>>> On Tue, 2007-04-17 at 21:28 -0500, Anna V wrote:
>>>
I've never never had used tables for layouts (I worked on pretty
complicated projects
On Thu, April 19, 2007 1:00 pm, Jim Moseby wrote:
>
>> In
>> fact, I may be going out on a limb here, but I challenge anyone to
>> describe a layout that isn't covered.
>
>
> I want a layout that looks identical in every browser without
> resorting to
> something like:
>
> switch($browser){
> c
Can we kill this now please? It's not a php issue, is an old and endless
argument and is better addressed on a css / design list.
> In
> fact, I may be going out on a limb here, but I challenge anyone to
> describe a layout that isn't covered.
I want a layout that looks identical in every browser without resorting to
something like:
switch($browser){
case 'IE':include('ie.css');
case 'Mozilla':include('mozilla.css')
That, and the big OT at the end means Off-Topic... So if you don't want
to get OT, just hit delete. ;)
tedd wrote:
At 8:59 AM +1200 4/19/07, Bruce Cowin wrote:
Now can we please close this thread! There are better forums to discuss
this - it has nothing to do with PHP!!
Lori
Lori:
True,
On Apr 19, 2007, at 9:08 AM, tedd wrote:
At 8:59 AM +1200 4/19/07, Bruce Cowin wrote:
Now can we please close this thread! There are better forums to
discuss
this - it has nothing to do with PHP!!
Lori
Lori:
True, it has nothing to do with php programming other than
compliance, accessi
At 11:36 PM -0500 4/18/07, Richard Lynch wrote:
But I don't think we're going to reach that Utopia where IE and FF
actually follow the standards in the same ways well enough to get out
of this CSS hack nightmare.
Well, as long as the old IE browsers are being used, then we'll
continue to have
At 8:59 AM +1200 4/19/07, Bruce Cowin wrote:
Now can we please close this thread! There are better forums to discuss
this - it has nothing to do with PHP!!
Lori
Lori:
True, it has nothing to do with php programming other than
compliance, accessibility, data gathering and data presentation.
On Tue, April 17, 2007 10:15 pm, Paul Novitski wrote:
> At 4/17/2007 07:53 PM, Robert Cummings wrote:
>>On Tue, 2007-04-17 at 21:28 -0500, Anna V wrote:
>> > I've never never had used tables for layouts (I worked on pretty
>> > complicated projects)... Heck, http://espn.com is CSS based, and
>> it
On Tue, April 17, 2007 10:35 pm, Paul Novitski wrote:
> At 4/17/2007 07:54 PM, Robert Cummings wrote:
>>tables were intended for laying out tabular data.
>
> This is an interesting assertion. Perhaps it would be a good
> question for Tim Berners-Lee. Was table markup intended to mark up
> tabular
On Tue, April 17, 2007 10:04 pm, Larry Garfield wrote:
> Sidebars are not tables.
If you squint so the content is all greeked, it looks like a table...
:-) :-) :-)
--
Some people have a "gift" link here.
Know what I want?
I want you to buy a CD from some indie artist.
http://cdbaby.com/browse/fr
On Tue, April 17, 2007 8:14 pm, Robert Cummings wrote:
> ... CSS is only
> semi-forward compatible.
Actually, that remains to be seen, really...
And given Microsoft behaviour in the past, I'm not real sanguine about
the future of CSS compatibility...
I think it's already at the point where CSS i
On Tue, April 17, 2007 6:53 pm, Larry Garfield wrote:
> On Tuesday 17 April 2007 3:40 pm, Robert Cummings wrote:
>
>> > BTW, any web developer worth his or her salt with a reasonable
>> amount of
>> > practice can make CSS layouts that resize as well as table based
>> layouts
>> > everyday of the w
And makes for very clean code. Very nice!
Regards,
Bruce
>>> Lori Lay <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 19/04/2007 5:02:33 a.m. >>>
Wolf wrote:
> OK, so I like sticking my nose in sometimes...
>
> Accessibility Standards and being bobby approved.
>
> http://webxact2.watchfire.com/report.asp?t=2#priority3
>
Wolf wrote:
OK, so I like sticking my nose in sometimes...
Accessibility Standards and being bobby approved.
http://webxact2.watchfire.com/report.asp?t=2#priority3
on
http://lonewolf.homelinux.net/
Is just about as good as http://www.csszengarden.com
Just the same 1 error
:)
Just FYI...
On 4/18/07, Wolf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
OK, so I like sticking my nose in sometimes...
Accessibility Standards and being bobby approved.
http://webxact2.watchfire.com/report.asp?t=2#priority3
on
http://lonewolf.homelinux.net/
Is just about as good as http://www.csszengarden.com
Just the s
Wolf wrote:
OK, so I like sticking my nose in sometimes...
Accessibility Standards and being bobby approved.
http://webxact2.watchfire.com/report.asp?t=2#priority3
on
http://lonewolf.homelinux.net/
Is just about as good as http://www.csszengarden.com
Just the same 1 error
:)
At least show s
OK, so I like sticking my nose in sometimes...
Accessibility Standards and being bobby approved.
http://webxact2.watchfire.com/report.asp?t=2#priority3
on
http://lonewolf.homelinux.net/
Is just about as good as http://www.csszengarden.com
Just the same 1 error
:)
--
PHP General Mailing List
Mom! Dad! Please don't fight!
= = = Original message = = =
On Tue, 2007-04-17 at 22:04 -0500, Larry Garfield wrote:
> On Tuesday 17 April 2007 9:54 pm, Robert Cummings wrote:
> >
> > You say "Using tables for layout *is* a hack". Unfortunately for you
> > tables were intended for laying out
[snip]
They're not hacks, they're features. :-)
I agree with Jay.
Leonard -- as far as 99% of the time for anything on the web, prove
it. You can't -- your trolling.
Leonard -- as far as resizing properly, what the hell are you talking
about? The question is rhetorical I don't care to dwell
At 4:40 PM -0400 4/17/07, Robert Cummings wrote:
On Tue, 2007-04-17 at 14:45 -0500, Jay Blanchard wrote:
At 3:40 PM -0400 4/17/07, Leonard Burton wrote:
> >From the CSS discussion of the WWE job posting thread.
>
> There is one question that shows that a table based layout in 99% of
> cases
At 4/17/2007 07:54 PM, Robert Cummings wrote:
You say "Using tables for layout *is* a hack".
I believe what he meant was that using tables for layout of
non-tabular data is a hack.
tables were intended for laying out tabular data.
This is an interesting assertion. Perhaps it would be a
On Tue, 2007-04-17 at 22:20 -0500, Anna V wrote:
> On 4/17/07, Paul Novitski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > At 4/17/2007 07:53 PM, Robert Cummings wrote:
> > >On Tue, 2007-04-17 at 21:28 -0500, Anna V wrote:
> > > > I've never never had used tables for layouts (I worked on pretty
> > > > compl
On Tue, 2007-04-17 at 22:04 -0500, Larry Garfield wrote:
> On Tuesday 17 April 2007 9:54 pm, Robert Cummings wrote:
> >
> > You say "Using tables for layout *is* a hack". Unfortunately for you
> > tables were intended for laying out tabular data. Thank you, thank you
> > very much.
>
> Tabular dat
On 4/17/07, Paul Novitski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
At 4/17/2007 07:53 PM, Robert Cummings wrote:
>On Tue, 2007-04-17 at 21:28 -0500, Anna V wrote:
> > I've never never had used tables for layouts (I worked on pretty
> > complicated projects)... Heck, http://espn.com is CSS based, and it
looks
At 4/17/2007 07:53 PM, Robert Cummings wrote:
On Tue, 2007-04-17 at 21:28 -0500, Anna V wrote:
> I've never never had used tables for layouts (I worked on pretty
> complicated projects)... Heck, http://espn.com is CSS based, and it looks
> pretty darn amazing. Just my quick thought on this. :)
On Tue, 2007-04-17 at 22:03 -0500, Anna V wrote:
>
>
> On 4/17/07, Robert Cummings <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, 2007-04-17 at 21:28 -0500, Anna V wrote:
> > On 4/17/07, Robert Cummings <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Tue, 2007-04-17 at 18:53 -0500
On Tuesday 17 April 2007 9:54 pm, Robert Cummings wrote:
> On Tue, 2007-04-17 at 21:21 -0500, Larry Garfield wrote:
> > On Tuesday 17 April 2007 8:14 pm, Robert Cummings wrote:
> > > On Tue, 2007-04-17 at 18:53 -0500, Larry Garfield wrote:
> > > > On Tuesday 17 April 2007 3:40 pm, Robert Cummings w
On 4/17/07, Robert Cummings <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Tue, 2007-04-17 at 21:28 -0500, Anna V wrote:
> On 4/17/07, Robert Cummings <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, 2007-04-17 at 18:53 -0500, Larry Garfield wrote:
> > > On Tuesday 17 April 2007 3:40 pm, Robert Cummings wrote:
> > >
>
On Tue, 2007-04-17 at 21:21 -0500, Larry Garfield wrote:
> On Tuesday 17 April 2007 8:14 pm, Robert Cummings wrote:
> > On Tue, 2007-04-17 at 18:53 -0500, Larry Garfield wrote:
> > > On Tuesday 17 April 2007 3:40 pm, Robert Cummings wrote:
> > > > > BTW, any web developer worth his or her salt with
On Tue, 2007-04-17 at 21:28 -0500, Anna V wrote:
> On 4/17/07, Robert Cummings <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, 2007-04-17 at 18:53 -0500, Larry Garfield wrote:
> > > On Tuesday 17 April 2007 3:40 pm, Robert Cummings wrote:
> > >
> > > > > BTW, any web developer worth his or her salt with
On 4/17/07, Robert Cummings <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Tue, 2007-04-17 at 18:53 -0500, Larry Garfield wrote:
> On Tuesday 17 April 2007 3:40 pm, Robert Cummings wrote:
>
> > > BTW, any web developer worth his or her salt with a reasonable
amount of
> > > practice can make CSS layouts that res
On Tuesday 17 April 2007 8:14 pm, Robert Cummings wrote:
> On Tue, 2007-04-17 at 18:53 -0500, Larry Garfield wrote:
> > On Tuesday 17 April 2007 3:40 pm, Robert Cummings wrote:
> > > > BTW, any web developer worth his or her salt with a reasonable amount
> > > > of practice can make CSS layouts tha
On Tue, 2007-04-17 at 18:53 -0500, Larry Garfield wrote:
> On Tuesday 17 April 2007 3:40 pm, Robert Cummings wrote:
>
> > > BTW, any web developer worth his or her salt with a reasonable amount of
> > > practice can make CSS layouts that resize as well as table based layouts
> > > everyday of the
On Tuesday 17 April 2007 3:40 pm, Robert Cummings wrote:
> > BTW, any web developer worth his or her salt with a reasonable amount of
> > practice can make CSS layouts that resize as well as table based layouts
> > everyday of the week. I will refer you to http://www.csszengarden.com/
>
> Only wit
On Tue, April 17, 2007 2:45 pm, Jay Blanchard wrote:
> [snip]
> From the CSS discussion of the WWE job posting thread.
>
> There is one question that shows that a table based layout in 99% of
> cases is superior to a CSS layout.
>
> Try resizing most any CSS based page.
>
> Tables are 99% of the ti
On Tue, 2007-04-17 at 14:45 -0500, Jay Blanchard wrote:
> [snip]
> >From the CSS discussion of the WWE job posting thread.
>
> There is one question that shows that a table based layout in 99% of
> cases is superior to a CSS layout.
>
> Try resizing most any CSS based page.
>
> Tables are 99% of
[snip]
>From the CSS discussion of the WWE job posting thread.
There is one question that shows that a table based layout in 99% of
cases is superior to a CSS layout.
Try resizing most any CSS based page.
Tables are 99% of the time superior as it will resize properly whereas
99% of most CSS base
HI All,
From the CSS discussion of the WWE job posting thread.
There is one question that shows that a table based layout in 99% of
cases is superior to a CSS layout.
Try resizing most any CSS based page.
Tables are 99% of the time superior as it will resize properly whereas
99% of most CSS
42 matches
Mail list logo
