http://hotdesign.com/seybold/everything.html - Why tables for layout is stupid

But this is entertaining. And yes, I CSS. But really, is sticking divs and spans everywhere better? Plus, the stinkin browsers do css differently so why be punished just to be pure?

There are more than divs and spans.  Semantic markup done correctly is a beautiful thing.  If it were just a little more organized (and if people like you weren't such dicks), we could be doing SO MUCH MORE with the data available on the web right now.

I've seldom do anything correctly. I just try and get by and make pretty stuff display.

Ironically, HTML was invented to separate presentation from content.

CSS fundamentalists share the same trait that all other fundamentalist suffer from: blindness for common sense and practical use.

If I have a list of undetermined size with items that have a number of properties, e.g. something exotic like a recordset from a database, there is a fair chance you want to represent that in the form of a table. Funny enough the <TABLE> tag and it family members provide just that functionality.

I still use tables. css didn't fix all the problems, and for somethings, tables are more cross-browser compatible than trying all the idiotic hacks to make css work.

I still use tables, but a lot less than I used to.  I'm slowing weaning my way off using tables for general layout (even though the results are usually better/easier than using CSS).

The thing I find humorous/moronic is the suggestion that CSS composed sites render better on handheld devices than tables...  that's blatantly false.  There was an example of this posted to Digg just last week.  Handheld devices work really well with tables and can squish them down to small sizes.  Most handheld browsers can't handle complex CSS layouts at all.  And yet, every time an article comes out saying everyone should switch to CSS that's listed as a benefit.

> he thing I find humorous/moronic is the suggestion that CSS composed sites render better on handheld devices than tables.

I would think knowing something is a table would give you immense help in rendering it on a smaller screen. With css how could you possibly know enough to make things fit?

>The thing I find humorous/moronic is the suggestion that CSS composed sites render better on handheld devices than tables

As a user of the Moto Q, I concur -- the more "advanced" a site is, the less likely it'll be pleasant on my Q.

I also find the idea that Google indexes better with pure CSS unsupported and contrary to common sense -- Search engines have been dealing with the simplicity of table layout for time eternal, and they certainly aren't blind about them. Google, or any search engine since 1995, also doesn't index "code", so the idea that a better content to code ratio increases the search hits seems ridiculous.

The example they give for "table layout" is ridiculous to boot. I'd almost think Michael Moore made this.

>CSS fundamentalists share the same trait that all other fundamentalist suffer from: blindness for common sense and practical use.

If I have a list of undetermined size with items that have a number of properties, e.g. something exotic like a recordset from a database, there is a fair chance you want to represent that in the form of a table. Funny enough the <TABLE> tag and it family members provide just that functionality.

Very VERY few (if any) people say that you should never, ever use tables.  Using tables for tabular data: fine.  Using tables for layout: eh.

> Using tables for layout: eh.

A table allows me to put stuff and a grid and have an actual chance of having things show up where I want them.

Using float and alignment etc is always an adventure.

Don't get me wrong. CSS is fine for layout, styling and positioning. But the ever returning dogma that the <table> tag is evil and shouldn't be used just gets on my nerve.

Also, as mentioned earlier, pages that use table layout are very good at adjusting to different window sizes. You can do that with CSS as well but with far more effort. CSS is more often used to 'fix' the layout rather than make it flexible regarding the rendering client.

TeX rules.

\hrule, \vrule, it was all good. gluey good.

Not being a big web dev, I worried an intranet page I made would be all screwy across browsers. Good thing I just unknowingly 'bastardized' it with tables for layout, or I'd still be figuring out why browsers suck ass.

"Very VERY few (if any) people say that you should never, ever use tables."

I don't know man, some of those HTML checkers complain about any tables, claiming they are deprecated and no longer part of web standards. And it's pretty common for designers to post letters about how tables should never ever be used, not even for tabular data. Tabular data should all be done with divs, that's the new css way, etc.

When they came for the vaccuum tubes I said nothing,
I was not a vaccuum tube.
When they came for the C purists I said nothing,
I was never a C purist.
When they came for the tables.... we just kept making them because c'mon, what the fuck are they really gonna do about it, make their browser even more shitty?

I'd take him more seriously,  if his site exploited the full width of my browser, you know like WIDTH="100%" in table, rather than being in a cramped column down the left of the browser window, wasting half the screen.