Lately, I've been having a lot of fun building pages in XHTML 1.1 because of it's flexibility. However, I continue to be reminded about the complexity with designs and lack of backwards support. <br />
<br />
What do you recommend for professional websites that get a fair amount of use? <br />
<br />
1) HTML 4.01 with tables and all that fun<br />
<br />
2) XHTML 1.1 with solid CSS<br />
<br />
<br />
Thanks for your opinions!<br />
- Jason<!--content-->I've been a loyal developer using tables and HTML. I've never had any problems with being able to get the design and layout just the way I want it. I've developed a new design for an existing website of mine using tables, and I've yet to have somebody be able to recreate it using CSS, some have been close, but it seems that CSS requires so many hacks just to get all the browsers happy. Now the common response seems to be that IE sucks, and people here may have a point, but until the majority of computer users go with something else, you don't have a choice but to make IE happy!!<br />
<br />
So with that said, I prefer tables for their ease of use. But there are so many benefits to CSS when talking about bandwith usage and flexibility. I may be new with CSS, but when somebody says it's the best thing for web design, I beg to differ.<!--content-->Originally posted by jasondubya <br />
lack of backwards support. If by backwards support, you mean the layout doesn't look exactly like it should under older browsers, that really shouldn't be a concern. As long as you reference your stylesheets via @import rules it will hide your CSS completely from old, buggy, 4.x browsers thus preventing them from mangling your CSS. As long as the content is accessible you're really all set: semantic markup with CSS for presentional purposes and taking advantage of Web standards will do this for you.Originally posted by jasondubya <br />
1) HTML 4.01 with tables and all that funI guess it's just a common misconception, but HTML 4.01 can be used to create perfectly semantic documents styled via CSS meaning you wouldn't have to use tables incorrectly for layout purposes.Originally posted by jasondubya <br />
2) XHTML 1.1 with solid CSSThis would be perhaps be more useful if you require cutting-edge XML technologies (e.g., SVG, MathML, etc.), but it would still be just as easy to use nonetheless seeing XHTML is nothing more than HTML 4.01 reworked as an XML application.<br />
<br />
The bottom line is really that either way is perfectly acceptable if implemented correctly.<!--content-->Originally posted by Stopper31 <br />
I've been a loyal developer using tables and HTML. I've never had any problems with being able to get the design and layout just the way I want it. I've developed a new design for an existing website of mine using tables, and I've yet to have somebody be able to recreate it using CSS, some have been close, but it seems that CSS requires so many hacks just to get all the browsers happy. Now the common response seems to be that IE sucks, and people here may have a point, but until the majority of computer users go with something else, you don't have a choice but to make IE happy!!<br />
<br />
So with that said, I prefer tables for their ease of use. But there are so many benefits to CSS when talking about bandwith usage and flexibility. I may be new with CSS, but when somebody says it's the best thing for web design, I beg to differ. <br />
Someone is forgetting that it is not about making things easy for web designers (who do not keep their knowledge up to date), and it is not about keeping browsers happy, BUT making your site accessible to all kinds of visitors, regardless of their browsing tool.<!--content-->Originally posted by Vladdy <br />
Someone is forgetting that it is not about making things easy for web designers (who do not keep their knowledge up to date), and it is not about keeping browsers happy, BUT making your site accessible to all kinds of visitors, regardless of their browsing tool. <br />
<br />
I agree with you 100%, but if you can't present a site that isn't flawed in the top browsers, then there's something wrong. And I realize that I should have learned CSS a long time ago, but it's too late for that, so I shall start learning now. I'm just surprised at how many hacks you need for it to look good all over.<br />
<br />
A question for anyone out there... Does anyone know of any plans for Microsoft to make IE more compliant to the other "good" browsers like Mozilla and Opera? Or is MS just ingorant in this case?<!--content-->"Look good" in different browsers does not mean "look the same" in different browsers. That is the trick. You design so that the content is presented within the browser capabilities.<br />
While I agree that different styling often required for Compliant browsers and IE, you learn the IE shortcomings quickly and there is not much extra work to adjust for them.<!--content-->Originally posted by Stopper31 <br />
I've developed a new design for an existing website of mine using tables, and I've yet to have somebody be able to recreate it using CSS<br />
I don't plan on trying to re-create your site using CSS, but I would like to see the site. (I'm not arguing with you, by the way, I do realize there are a few layouts that are not easily created with CSS).<br />
<br />
but it seems that CSS requires so many hacks just to get all the browsers happy.<br />
Not necessarily, expecially when one knows what they are doing.<br />
<br />
you don't have a choice but to make IE happy!!<br />
Sure, I agree with that. However, you also can and should make other, better browsers "happy". No reason to create sites that only work in IE.<br />
<br />
I may be new with CSS, but when somebody says it's the best thing for web design, I beg to differ. <br />
Please quailfy that, 'cause I beg to differ.
<!--content-->Well, let's start off by saying I know I'm fighting a losing battle because I've seen some developers make some really nice sites using CSS.<br />
<br />
My current site is <!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.ambianceweddingdesign.com">http://www.ambianceweddingdesign.com</a><!-- m --> and as you can tell it needs a new design. I like the centered "table-look" with a width of around 750px or so with off-colored sides (body bgcolor). So if you nav to that site and tack on /redonesite/index.asp you'll see how I want the layout to look (done using tables). Now I'm really eager to learn how to design using CSS so with much help from some people on this forum, we've come up with a new layout at the same location, except index2.asp. Now my issues with that is that I'd like the Nav to extend all the way to the right, the space below the footer trim gone so that the trim is on the bottom, and the spacing in the heading to be equal. Also, I never want any of the background to be showing below the bottom of the footer (ie: I'd like the page to extend to 100% in height).<br />
<br />
If someone can suggest some changes that can make this new CSS layout look like my table layout, I'll call you a god, and completely change my tune on CSS for layout and design!!<!--content-->You can call me god if you want I won't take offence for 100% height you have to use an evil CSS hack placed on both the html and body element.<!--content-->
<br />
What do you recommend for professional websites that get a fair amount of use? <br />
<br />
1) HTML 4.01 with tables and all that fun<br />
<br />
2) XHTML 1.1 with solid CSS<br />
<br />
<br />
Thanks for your opinions!<br />
- Jason<!--content-->I've been a loyal developer using tables and HTML. I've never had any problems with being able to get the design and layout just the way I want it. I've developed a new design for an existing website of mine using tables, and I've yet to have somebody be able to recreate it using CSS, some have been close, but it seems that CSS requires so many hacks just to get all the browsers happy. Now the common response seems to be that IE sucks, and people here may have a point, but until the majority of computer users go with something else, you don't have a choice but to make IE happy!!<br />
<br />
So with that said, I prefer tables for their ease of use. But there are so many benefits to CSS when talking about bandwith usage and flexibility. I may be new with CSS, but when somebody says it's the best thing for web design, I beg to differ.<!--content-->Originally posted by jasondubya <br />
lack of backwards support. If by backwards support, you mean the layout doesn't look exactly like it should under older browsers, that really shouldn't be a concern. As long as you reference your stylesheets via @import rules it will hide your CSS completely from old, buggy, 4.x browsers thus preventing them from mangling your CSS. As long as the content is accessible you're really all set: semantic markup with CSS for presentional purposes and taking advantage of Web standards will do this for you.Originally posted by jasondubya <br />
1) HTML 4.01 with tables and all that funI guess it's just a common misconception, but HTML 4.01 can be used to create perfectly semantic documents styled via CSS meaning you wouldn't have to use tables incorrectly for layout purposes.Originally posted by jasondubya <br />
2) XHTML 1.1 with solid CSSThis would be perhaps be more useful if you require cutting-edge XML technologies (e.g., SVG, MathML, etc.), but it would still be just as easy to use nonetheless seeing XHTML is nothing more than HTML 4.01 reworked as an XML application.<br />
<br />
The bottom line is really that either way is perfectly acceptable if implemented correctly.<!--content-->Originally posted by Stopper31 <br />
I've been a loyal developer using tables and HTML. I've never had any problems with being able to get the design and layout just the way I want it. I've developed a new design for an existing website of mine using tables, and I've yet to have somebody be able to recreate it using CSS, some have been close, but it seems that CSS requires so many hacks just to get all the browsers happy. Now the common response seems to be that IE sucks, and people here may have a point, but until the majority of computer users go with something else, you don't have a choice but to make IE happy!!<br />
<br />
So with that said, I prefer tables for their ease of use. But there are so many benefits to CSS when talking about bandwith usage and flexibility. I may be new with CSS, but when somebody says it's the best thing for web design, I beg to differ. <br />
Someone is forgetting that it is not about making things easy for web designers (who do not keep their knowledge up to date), and it is not about keeping browsers happy, BUT making your site accessible to all kinds of visitors, regardless of their browsing tool.<!--content-->Originally posted by Vladdy <br />
Someone is forgetting that it is not about making things easy for web designers (who do not keep their knowledge up to date), and it is not about keeping browsers happy, BUT making your site accessible to all kinds of visitors, regardless of their browsing tool. <br />
<br />
I agree with you 100%, but if you can't present a site that isn't flawed in the top browsers, then there's something wrong. And I realize that I should have learned CSS a long time ago, but it's too late for that, so I shall start learning now. I'm just surprised at how many hacks you need for it to look good all over.<br />
<br />
A question for anyone out there... Does anyone know of any plans for Microsoft to make IE more compliant to the other "good" browsers like Mozilla and Opera? Or is MS just ingorant in this case?<!--content-->"Look good" in different browsers does not mean "look the same" in different browsers. That is the trick. You design so that the content is presented within the browser capabilities.<br />
While I agree that different styling often required for Compliant browsers and IE, you learn the IE shortcomings quickly and there is not much extra work to adjust for them.<!--content-->Originally posted by Stopper31 <br />
I've developed a new design for an existing website of mine using tables, and I've yet to have somebody be able to recreate it using CSS<br />
I don't plan on trying to re-create your site using CSS, but I would like to see the site. (I'm not arguing with you, by the way, I do realize there are a few layouts that are not easily created with CSS).<br />
<br />
but it seems that CSS requires so many hacks just to get all the browsers happy.<br />
Not necessarily, expecially when one knows what they are doing.<br />
<br />
you don't have a choice but to make IE happy!!<br />
Sure, I agree with that. However, you also can and should make other, better browsers "happy". No reason to create sites that only work in IE.<br />
<br />
I may be new with CSS, but when somebody says it's the best thing for web design, I beg to differ. <br />
Please quailfy that, 'cause I beg to differ.
<!--content-->Well, let's start off by saying I know I'm fighting a losing battle because I've seen some developers make some really nice sites using CSS.<br /><br />
My current site is <!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.ambianceweddingdesign.com">http://www.ambianceweddingdesign.com</a><!-- m --> and as you can tell it needs a new design. I like the centered "table-look" with a width of around 750px or so with off-colored sides (body bgcolor). So if you nav to that site and tack on /redonesite/index.asp you'll see how I want the layout to look (done using tables). Now I'm really eager to learn how to design using CSS so with much help from some people on this forum, we've come up with a new layout at the same location, except index2.asp. Now my issues with that is that I'd like the Nav to extend all the way to the right, the space below the footer trim gone so that the trim is on the bottom, and the spacing in the heading to be equal. Also, I never want any of the background to be showing below the bottom of the footer (ie: I'd like the page to extend to 100% in height).<br />
<br />
If someone can suggest some changes that can make this new CSS layout look like my table layout, I'll call you a god, and completely change my tune on CSS for layout and design!!<!--content-->You can call me god if you want I won't take offence for 100% height you have to use an evil CSS hack placed on both the html and body element.<!--content-->