Re: To table or not to table?

On Tue, 02 Oct 2007 08:06:44 +1000, dorayme wrote:

In article <t26fb9rfiguy$.dlg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
Jim S <jim@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Almost all the many pages on my website look something like this
http://www.jimscot.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Jims_pictures/Jimspics_14_wave.html
Is there any advantage to doing away with the 'table' as a placeholder?
If so, could someone please show me how to do it?

"table as a placeholder" presumably means "table for layout". I
mention this to help you search the many times this has been
discussed here. There are several things that you could be asking
here:

(1) Why is table for layout bad in general? (you won't get too
much these days from many experts here because they would be
tired of answering this). Yes, there are advantages, they are of
a *general kind*, it has been greatly discussed.

(2) Is it worth changing a table layout site to one that conforms
to better practise? If it is an evolving site, and will have a
future, be updated regularly and get new sections etc, yes, it
will gain all the advantages from accruing from the above. If it
is not, if it is a legacy piece, still of interest, if it is also
large and complicated, the answer is probably not.

(3) As for your particular page above, it is an example of many,
the changes would be very easy and useful because you might
improve some things while at it - for example, in Safari, the fwd
and back buttons are way down at the bottom of a page. The
caption is way down from the pic. It looks odd on a big screen
and involves greater travel for the mouse. Making a page for
these pics with a caption, and forward and back button would be
very simple, involve less code (less css and less html) than what
you have. I would be happy to give you a demo if you are
interested as I am sure would others.

---------
btw, in your css you have an unwanted character before your
table.sample { (i>>?table.sample {)

Not here I haven't.

Anyhow, yes I am asking for a demo.
I simply have never been able to find a simpler way of presenting the
pictures in a way that keeps them within the bounds of an 800x600 layout
(and bigger), centralised. The buttons are meant to be in the lowest bottom
corners of the screen.
--
Jim S
Tyneside UK
www.jimscott.co.uk
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: To table or not to table?
    ... Jim S wrote: ... Is it worth changing a table layout site to one that conforms ... involve less code (less css and less html) than what ... Here is a picture to demo what I ...
    (alt.html)
  • Re: To table or not to table?
    ... No problem Jim. ... coding being so much simpler than your table layout. ... you can mark up your table layout simpler and better (as you are ... "Inline css": does this refer to a line like this ...
    (alt.html)
  • Re: To table or not to table?
    ... dorayme wrote: ... my fault for bad markup, not the fault of using tables. ... No problem Jim. ... coding being so much simpler than your table layout. ...
    (alt.html)
  • Re: Ping Jonathan Little and others
    ... dorayme wrote: ... And CSS is simply ... Does not come simpler than this, Jim. ... if there is only one picture. ...
    (alt.html)
  • Re: convert a table to a
    controlled layout
    ... Jim S wrote: ... Take a look at your code, all your html and all your css and surely you ... The rest of the single photo pages need very little change from the ...
    (alt.html)