Tables and CSS vs. Pure CSS

[JYM]

Which would you recommend? Tables with css for images, text, and to define the tables, or pure css for the entire layout?

I checked microsoft's source code and it's made with tables so I wonder why they would do that when CSS is becoming increasingly powerful and popular?

I mean microsoft is a leading company in terms of technology so why would they implement the use of tables, which is quite old and was never designed for the way it is used?

Comments and opinions?

 

[wackyjoe]

CSS maybe a big thing now...but sites like...Microsoft, google, yahoo etc dont use it completely...
CSS has quicker loading then tables but i spose it is much more challenging coding wise

 

[peter phillips]

Yes, sites made with pure CSS load much faster than the one ones designed with the help of tables but CSS is much more challenging coding wise. CSS allows more flexibility in design while tables are designed to display data in an ordered way. I think a combination of both would be the best choice.

 

[theparrot]

css for layout, tables for tabular data.

MS has never been a leading tech company in terms of technology breakthroughs, but rather in bringing it to the masses later. Especially on the web they are not one to look to for examples.

 

[Brian]

CSS maybe a big thing now...but sites like...Microsoft, google, yahoo etc dont use it completely...
CSS has quicker loading then tables but i spose it is much more challenging coding wise

Actually I do believe Yahoo has switched over to an all CSS layout, may still use tables for tabular data, but tables are supposed to be used for that.

 

[Epic]

Only time I use tables any more is for showing data that needs table. Otherwise, they just take too long to load and make the files huge. I noticed a big drop in bandwidth when I switched to CSS.

 

[bpeh]

have a look at bbc website. the css implementation is cool. there r times when css cannot justify the time esp if you want the whole site to be css.

 

[2knew]

there r times when css cannot justify the time esp if you want the whole site to be css.

imho, any time you spend fiddling with css at the outset will be rewarded with reduced maintenance later on.

I've used table hacks for years - came around to CSS for placement pretty late. Always used it for font and colours and so forth, but using it for placement was too buggy. Not any more. There are still differences in the way IE vs FF render placement that really p*ss me off but, it's gotten better and the trade-off for extensibilty and reduce maintenance make CSS worthwhile.

I believe any placement you can do with css, should be done with css instead of tables.

 

[Palyriot]

I use tables as little as possible, but there is only one situation that is keeping me using them. This situation is when say for example, you have links on the left and context on the right, but you want them to have their own seperate space. Whenever you do one <div></div> after another <div></div> it automatically breaks to the next line. Is there a way to use 2 divs or even one to have info side by side, but seperated?

 

[Jim_]

CSS is trendy. Everyone wants to keep up with the latest fad. :P

Is there a way to use 2 divs or even one to have info side by side, but seperated?

display: inline;

 

[Palyriot]

Wow, that is very awesome. After this, I will never use tables again except for data. Thanks a lot.

$rep++;

 

[LeetPCUser]

Microsoft also makes IE which sucks. Go with pure CSS. Only use tables if you need to print tabulated data.

 

[Mall23]

So you use it for complicated stuff?

Or just general page layout (2 column pages, 3 columns, etc)?

And the first page on google that talks about "css layout" came up and talks about a IE5x bug with some crazy workaround (not intuitive at all).
http://glish.com/css/7.asp -- in the code box at the bottom of the page.

So when/if I give in to peer pressure and get on the CSS hype bandwagon (remember WAP?), does this mean I'll have to spend upteen hours re-discovering a whole list of undocumented "features" like this? Fun Fun

 

[monty]

I use tables as little as possible, but there is only one situation that is keeping me using them. This situation is when say for example, you have links on the left and context on the right, but you want them to have their own seperate space. Whenever you do one <div></div> after another <div></div> it automatically breaks to the next line. Is there a way to use 2 divs or even one to have info side by side, but seperated?

try using <span></span> instead of <div></div>

 

[jstgermain]

i personally prefer to use a combination of css and tables. i like the tables to keep structure, but i call classes and id's to the table from the css file. just my preference though.

 

[Amnezia]

I havent used tables for layout for a long time, pure CSS is just alot more logical and structured. Admitedly it does take a while getting used to but it is definately worth learning.

 

[Palyriot]

Well, CSS cleans up your code a lot. Such as:

<div class="div"></div>

instead of:

<table class="table">
<tr><td class="cell"></td></tr>
</table>

 

[cooljeba]

css is the call for the day. But we can't eliminate tables completely

..:: peace ::..
Jeba

 

[JYM]

Everyone's suggesting CSS and that's what I've been using for my past few websites but I'm still uncertain because the release of IE7 could change my thinking. IE7 doesn't support the min-height attribute and it is the only way I can make my footer work in CSS. Hopefully IE7 will fix this problem... however right now IE7 gives my webpage a horizontal scrollbar although the width is set to 100%. It's very strange... I may just use tables to make the columns and then css the rest of it.

 

[neocoven]

One of the powerful option of CSS is you can choose output media display such as print, screen, or PDA.

With table, it might not be possible because table does not have much flexibility.

I took 1 class last semester and I made a website with only CSS. It was a hell of work. lol

FYI, http://www.ajiv.com/final

There is no table at all with this website.