this one.Author: Tridus ()
Date: 2000-03-28 00:00:00
Its pretty rare because of how horrible stylesheet support has been, but tables are just a godawful way of positioning anything, they weren't designed to do that, and actually tend to do a good job of rendering things virtually unreadable in a browser that doesn't support all the extensions that are being used to make them into a formatting tool, which isn't as big of a problem with CSS, because its not a markup tool at all.
A great test is on my 486 where you can see the difference... this page renders in nearly no time, a large table page takes forever and a day to render. I'm just not interested in wasting that much cpu power for something that varies in the way it works from browser to browser like tables do, especially when its not even meant to do that. Besides, that cpu power could better go to benifit distributed.net, and the stuff is way easier to edit later without all kinds of table tags getting in the way.
They can use tables if they want to, just don't expect me to be very enthusiastic if they do, because I despise using tables as a layout tool (especially on pages which hard code the resolution in and waste half my screen in fullscreen mode or make me scroll in a smaller window, thats about the dumbest thing I've ever seen done to webpage design).
If there were no words, no way to speak... I would still hear you... - Martina McBride
Hey guys, if you find the post and config pages cluttered... - Tridus - 2000-03-28 00:00:00
-But for the config page a table is GOOD! - The Lord DebtAngel - 2000-03-28 00:00:00
--that stress test still kills 4.7. :) - Tridus - 2000-03-28 00:00:00
---It didn't kill it last I checked... - The Lord DebtAngel - 2000-03-28 00:00:00
----well it depends how big a table it is too. - Tridus - 2000-03-28 00:00:00
-Hmm, what sites don't use tables nowadays? - RStefan01 - 2000-03-28 00:00:00
--this one. - Tridus - 2000-03-28 00:00:00