51–60 of 93 posts
Because the data is tabular?
Um, Tabular data of a single column is usually referred to as a list. :-) Seriously though, it's not just a list, it's an ordered list.
I can't believe this thread has 49 comments (and counting). What a classic bicycle shed.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> It will save you work in the long run That's the biggest lie of them all. And maintenance? No one does that, they do re-writes. How many hours have I wasted on this joke of not using tables?
Have you ever operated a website with over a hundred pages? Just curious. And as far as hours wasted, having coded both ways, and originally viewing css as stupid and more work, I can now code a website in half the time using it than tables. In fact, when I'm just hacking something quick, it's great not to bother with any layout at all and just come back to it when I have the time. You can't do that with tables.
If you are a programmer on a large site you won't touch the design. It will be done by a skilled designer, or designing firm. You won't care how its done whatsoever.
There is a lot more to say here...but basically you won't touch the design. Or want to. Or care how its done :)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Um, Tabular data of a single column is usually referred to as a list. :-) Seriously though, it's not just a list, it's an ordered list.
There are only three columns on the front page now, but when I was working on the site I experimented with different layouts in which there were more. Why constrain myself by using a degenerate case of tables? I can't believe this thread has 49 comments (and counting). What a classic bicycle shed.
But seriously, what do you mean degenerate case of tables? CSS?
I suppose my biggest gripe is a statement like that; once understood and learned, HTML w/ CSS is actually easier to use. It's easier to code, re-code, fix, format, and just generally muck around with.
Aside from that though, inconsequential.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Have you ever operated a website with over a hundred pages? Just curious. And as far as hours wasted, having coded both ways, and originally viewing css as stupid and more work, I can now code a website in half the time using it than tables. In fact, when I'm just hacking something quick, it's great not to bother with any layout at all and just come back to it when I have the time. You can't do that with tables.
I was a lead developer on a massive website... If you are a programmer on a large site you won't touch the design. It will be done by a skilled designer, or designing firm. You won't care how its done whatsoever. There is a lot more to say here...but basically you won't touch the design. Or want to. Or care how its done :)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There are only three columns on the front page now, but when I was working on the site I experimented with different layouts in which there were more. Why constrain myself by using a degenerate case of tables? I can't believe this thread has 49 comments (and counting). What a classic bicycle shed.
Well, you're participating... :-p But seriously, what do you mean degenerate case of tables? CSS? I suppose my biggest gripe is a statement like that; once understood and learned, HTML w/ CSS is actually easier to use . It's easier to code, re-code, fix, format, and just generally muck around with. Aside from that though, inconsequential.
HTML w/ CSS is actually easier to use
You just don't seem to get that I don't use html. I generate it. Your argument is like saying it's easier to write programs in old-style instruction sets than RISC ones. Sure, but the best approach of all is to write in neither, and instead have a program generate it. Then it doesn't matter which you use.
Complaining that the html source of a software-generated site is ugly is like complaining that the code generated by the compiler of a high level language is ugly. Of course it's ugly; that's the whole point of high level languages.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't follow. At any instant in time, every element on a webpage has a well-formed width. So why can't a child be centered, using that width?
>At any instant in time, every element on a webpage has a well-formed width. That's not exactly true. Every block element has a width, but inline objects do not. Furthermore, some block elements may have fixed widths, while others may be designed to take up as little as they require. The "center" attribute that you describe would run counter to the visual formatting model of the standard that is in place to support a…
See, there's where we differ. I'd like to easily design a webpage that renders fine on 90% of my user's screens. I'd bet 90% of my users will be using personal computers, and use a resolution between 800x600 and 1920x1200. Want to look at my page on your non-iPhone? I'd love to introduce you to the m.mypage.com section of my site.
Something like "Center a child relative to a parent" isn't hard to do (we do it at work for our video game GUI), and it really seems like a few architecture astronauts got ahold of the CSS standards to cause these API usability problems.
Also, arguments like "You can't do that simple thing because.." are starting to sound like the arguments C++ pundits use to justify its monstrous complexity compared to C.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Well, you're participating... :-p But seriously, what do you mean degenerate case of tables? CSS? I suppose my biggest gripe is a statement like that; once understood and learned, HTML w/ CSS is actually easier to use . It's easier to code, re-code, fix, format, and just generally muck around with. Aside from that though, inconsequential.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Degeneracy_%28mathematics%29 HTML w/ CSS is actually easier to use You just don't seem to get that I don't use html. I generate it. Your argument is like saying it's easier to write programs in old-style instruction sets than RISC ones. Sure, but the best approach of all is to write in neither, and instead have a program generate it. Then it doesn't matter which you use. Complaining that…
1. Your generated code is fast becoming obsolete, even IE passed Acid 2 the other week. That might be a concern.
2. What do you do to fix it when things go wrong, especially given number 1?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>At any instant in time, every element on a webpage has a well-formed width. That's not exactly true. Every block element has a width, but inline objects do not. Furthermore, some block elements may have fixed widths, while others may be designed to take up as little as they require. The "center" attribute that you describe would run counter to the visual formatting model of the standard that is in place to support a…
That would mean that its behaviour would be next to impossible to design around if you were trying to account for all of your users screen sizes at the same time. See, there's where we differ. I'd like to easily design a webpage that renders fine on 90% of my user's screens. I'd bet 90% of my users will be using personal computers, and use a resolution between 800x600 and 1920x1200. Want to look at my page on your no…
parent {}
child{ margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; width: 100px; }
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Well, you're participating... :-p But seriously, what do you mean degenerate case of tables? CSS? I suppose my biggest gripe is a statement like that; once understood and learned, HTML w/ CSS is actually easier to use . It's easier to code, re-code, fix, format, and just generally muck around with. Aside from that though, inconsequential.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Degeneracy_%28mathematics%29 HTML w/ CSS is actually easier to use You just don't seem to get that I don't use html. I generate it. Your argument is like saying it's easier to write programs in old-style instruction sets than RISC ones. Sure, but the best approach of all is to write in neither, and instead have a program generate it. Then it doesn't matter which you use. Complaining that…
1. Ignore web standards, 2. Forgo readability, or 3. Make bloated code.
I mean, look at the source of hacker news. Its just not elegant. Whether or not you believe it should be, HTML/CSS was designed to be coded a certain way and browsers expect that format. Why change it and suggedt that you're turning HTML into something it isn't ?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That would mean that its behaviour would be next to impossible to design around if you were trying to account for all of your users screen sizes at the same time. See, there's where we differ. I'd like to easily design a webpage that renders fine on 90% of my user's screens. I'd bet 90% of my users will be using personal computers, and use a resolution between 800x600 and 1920x1200. Want to look at my page on your no…
I never said you couldn't do it, you just can't do it the way you prefer: parent {} child{ margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; width: 100px; }
child{ center: horizontal; }