I have been working on BlackUniGryphon's website design and hit a major snag I had forgotten about. CSS, especially the 960 grid work design, does not work well in vertical
( Read more... )
I suppose this is where my CSS-purist streak gets me into trouble. Tables are meant for tabular data, not design work.
They have been used as such in the past (for design) and to great effect. However, using tables increases the DL rate of a page more then just using css. The more table cells, and the more complicated the design, the worse it is.
However, the suggestion you offer limits the number of cells, and shouldn't pose that much of an issues. It just ruffles my fur, so to speak, in terms of "clean, standards-based, coding".
Which is a PITA in and of itself, since the standards have changed yet again. ;) hehe.
I honestly hate to try to make a size 100% CSS using only divs and layouts based in p's and spans..
since every goodamn shit looks differentin every goodamn browser.
specially IE 6,7.. im still having problem when using pure 100% CSS 3.. on the NEWER ONES.. chrome for example, loves to not stretch certain divs.. despite ordering it to do so.. firefox shows it correctly.. while IE 8 doesnt even show them!.
"since every goodamn shit looks different in every goodamn browser." <--- Agreed with the emotion. And instead of finding a way to force the Browsers to comply, they allow them their freedoms.
I suppose in a twisted way it's a form of job security? :P FEH!
I remember when Chrome first came out and I was playing with the transparency of divs. I discovered the parent-child issue that the first release of Chrome had. Apparently what was good for the parent wasn't good for the child and it didn't inherit certain properties!
and IE... yeah.... at least Netscape as we knew it is dead in the water. One less thing to reeeally worry about!
Comments 5
Reply
Tables are meant for tabular data, not design work.
They have been used as such in the past (for design) and to great effect. However, using tables increases the DL rate of a page more then just using css. The more table cells, and the more complicated the design, the worse it is.
However, the suggestion you offer limits the number of cells, and shouldn't pose that much of an issues. It just ruffles my fur, so to speak, in terms of "clean, standards-based, coding".
Which is a PITA in and of itself, since the standards have changed yet again. ;) hehe.
Reply
since every goodamn shit looks differentin every goodamn browser.
specially IE 6,7..
im still having problem when using pure 100% CSS 3.. on the NEWER ONES..
chrome for example, loves to not stretch certain divs.. despite ordering it to do so..
firefox shows it correctly.. while IE 8 doesnt even show them!.
Reply
"since every goodamn shit looks different in every goodamn browser." <--- Agreed with the emotion. And instead of finding a way to force the Browsers to comply, they allow them their freedoms.
I suppose in a twisted way it's a form of job security? :P FEH!
I remember when Chrome first came out and I was playing with the transparency of divs. I discovered the parent-child issue that the first release of Chrome had. Apparently what was good for the parent wasn't good for the child and it didn't inherit certain properties!
and IE... yeah.... at least Netscape as we knew it is dead in the water. One less thing to reeeally worry about!
Reply
Leave a comment