There seams to be a huge following that laying out a site in tables is the wrong way to do it, but why? The big argument against tables and for CSS/2 is that HTML is for 'storing data' not displaying it. But it seams to me that HTML is soley for formating/displaying data on the screen and that XML is to be used for storing the data (with a focus soley on the data and not the display). <br />
<br />
CSS/2 is limited by lack of support yet tables are pretty much universally supported now. I know CSS3 is going to all but eliminate the use of tables being used for site layout, but that could easily take another 3-4 years to be standardized by the w3c and then have its support appear in most browsers.<br />
<br />
I also know that tables *can* make the HTML hard to work with (espically when compared to css) but that's not enough of a deterent for me. Besides, if you look at frontpage 2003 using tables is not only encouraged but much, much easier.<br />
<br />
So with all this in mind what is so bad w/ using tables for site layout?<!--content-->You get better search engine rankings with css because you've got less junk crowding your pages.<br />
You also have control over where the menu appears in the code, so you can put unimportant stuff like that to be read last by the search engine.<br />
In addition you have a centralised file that controls all of your pages - so one change can be reflected in every page, cutting down on your work.<br />
<br />
There's other stuff as well, but they're the most important for me.<!--content-->Another important reason is Download <!--more--> time. Instead of people having to Download <!--more--> your table code for every page they visit, they Download <!--more--> it once in the form of a css file.<br />
It's also easier to change it using the edit command on WS_FTP.<!--content-->This topic has been covered a dozen times. The following thread should answer most of your questions.<br />
<br />
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://forums.webdeveloper.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=10167&highlight=table">http://forums.webdeveloper.com/showthre ... ight=table</a><!-- m --><!--content-->
<br />
CSS/2 is limited by lack of support yet tables are pretty much universally supported now. I know CSS3 is going to all but eliminate the use of tables being used for site layout, but that could easily take another 3-4 years to be standardized by the w3c and then have its support appear in most browsers.<br />
<br />
I also know that tables *can* make the HTML hard to work with (espically when compared to css) but that's not enough of a deterent for me. Besides, if you look at frontpage 2003 using tables is not only encouraged but much, much easier.<br />
<br />
So with all this in mind what is so bad w/ using tables for site layout?<!--content-->You get better search engine rankings with css because you've got less junk crowding your pages.<br />
You also have control over where the menu appears in the code, so you can put unimportant stuff like that to be read last by the search engine.<br />
In addition you have a centralised file that controls all of your pages - so one change can be reflected in every page, cutting down on your work.<br />
<br />
There's other stuff as well, but they're the most important for me.<!--content-->Another important reason is Download <!--more--> time. Instead of people having to Download <!--more--> your table code for every page they visit, they Download <!--more--> it once in the form of a css file.<br />
It's also easier to change it using the edit command on WS_FTP.<!--content-->This topic has been covered a dozen times. The following thread should answer most of your questions.<br />
<br />
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://forums.webdeveloper.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=10167&highlight=table">http://forums.webdeveloper.com/showthre ... ight=table</a><!-- m --><!--content-->