History of Table_vs_Div

Differences from version 3 to 5



@@ -1,21 +1,25 @@

-!!thoughts regarding the layout using divs and tables
+{maketoc}
 
--=tables=-
-pros
+!!tables
+-=pros=-
 *more compatible with old browsers
 
-cons
+-=cons=-
 *cumbersome
 
--=divs=-
+!!divs
+-=pros=-
 *very flexible
-**divs can be moved around the page using the css --> perhaps PackageStylist could allow positioning of divs (illustrated here: [http://www.csszengarden.com/|css Zen Garden])
+**divs can be moved around the page using the css --> perhaps StylistPackage could allow positioning of divs (probably best illustrated at [http://www.csszengarden.com/|css Zen Garden])
+*future proof
+**with CSS3 on the horizon, i think we should make an effort to move to divs.
 
-cons
+-=cons=-
 *older browsers have difficulties displaying a div layout
-*difficult to create a pixelperfect layout
+*virtually 'impossible' to create a pixelperfect layout that expands over 100% of the displayed area - let's be honest: who really needs that. most sitest that look really good, are constrained to a certain width anyway (IMHO). if you instist on that kind of layout, i suppose you could use your own tiki.tpl file that uses a table as layout.
 
--=links=-
-[http://www.glish.com/css/|CSS Layout Techniques]
-[http://www.csszengarden.com/|css Zen Garden] this is probably the cooles css site out there!!!
-[http://www.alistapart.com/articles/tohell/|To hell with bad Browsers]
+!!links
+*[http://www.glish.com/css/|CSS Layout Techniques]
+*[http://www.csszengarden.com/|css Zen Garden] this is probably the cooles css site out there!!!
+*[http://www.alistapart.com/articles/tohell/|To hell with bad Browsers]
+*[http://www.webstandards.org/upgrade/|Browser Upgrade Campaign]
Page History
Date/CommentUserIPVersion
22 Aug 2004 (22:15 UTC)
xing62.99.189.1305
Current • Source
xing62.99.189.1304
View • Compare • Difference • Source
xing62.99.189.1303
View • Compare • Difference • Source
xing62.99.189.1302
View • Compare • Difference • Source