Did you know that document.getElementById wasn't around until vista!!



  • else if (document.getElementById)
     {
      vista = (document.getElementById(areaName).style.display == 'none') ? 'block' : 'none';
      document.getElementById(areaName).style.display = vista;
     }

    LOL!

    This line really does describe the system well, it goes along with the 1 line by 3000 character SQL query written into a Java string variable that joins 13 tables.



  •  where's the wtf here? vista means view. Although it really wasn't necessary to create the variable at all, it still doesn't seem like a wtf.



  • WTF is the fact that he had to test for friggen document.getElementById!  This disaster of an app was built last year btw... not when Internet Explorer 4 was in use... and even then I think document.getElementById was around then too!



  • @murdog said:

    WTF is the fact that he had to test for friggen document.getElementById!  This disaster of an app was built last year btw... not when Internet Explorer 4 was in use... and even then I think document.getElementById was around then too!

    If you look closely, you'll see that's an else if. Not only did they test for getElementById, but it's a fallback incase something else doesn't work.



  • Well, the if was

    if (document.layers){..}
    else if (document.all) {..}
    else if (document.getElementById) {..}

    This app was built in 2008... who the heck uses a browser that doesn't have document.getElementById... seriously!  The other two ways of retreiving a dom object from the DOM are big no-nos as it is!



  • Wow, document.layers—there’s a blast from the past. And written in 2008, you say? Might want to have them bone up on what’s happened since the browser wars of the 90s, since it looks like they must have been in a coma since then. Do all three paths access a “style” property anyway?



  • Yep, all three accessed the style tag, I give him that much... although his html was almost as bad

    <ul>
        <li>Heading</li>
        <ul>
              <li>Option1</li>
              <li>Option 2</li>
        </ul>
    </ul>

    Fantastic.

    Next post I will talk about the only comments he put in his code... like
    // start getAllLocations
    public List getAllLocations(){

     ...
    // end getAllLocations
    }

     



  • @murdog said:

    Yep, all three accessed the style tag, I give him that much... although his html was almost as bad

    <ul>
        <li>Heading</li>
        <ul>
              <li>Option1</li>
              <li>Option 2</li>
        </ul>
    </ul>

    Fantastic.

    ...I guess it was too much effort for him to at least throw in another <li> tag around that nested list.



  • @murdog said:

    Yep, all three accessed the style tag, I give him that much
    What are you giving him? There was no style attribute in Netscape 4. The properties that could be dynamically changed (left, top, z-index, visibility, clip, background-color, background-image) were attributes placed directly on the Layer object. That code will never, ever work.



  • @murdog said:

    Yep, all three accessed the style tag, I give him that much... although his html was almost as bad

    <ul>
        <li>Heading</li>
        <ul>
              <li>Option1</li>
              <li>Option 2</li>
        </ul>
    </ul>

    Fantastic.

    Next post I will talk about the only comments he put in his code... like
    // start getAllLocations
    public List getAllLocations(){

     ...
    // end getAllLocations
    }

     

     

    It could be worse. He could have used all divs or *shudder* a table-based layout.



  • @bob171123 said:

    It could be worse. He could have used all divs or shudder a table-based layout.

    Why the table hate?



  • @Daid said:

    @bob171123 said:

    It could be worse. He could have used all divs or shudder a table-based layout.

    Why the table hate?
    Stupid people hate tables because they are stupid.  By "they" I mean the people, not the tables.



  • Tables should only be used for data... using them for layouts or anything else like that is just wrong wrong wrong!



  • @bstorer said:

    @Daid said:

    @bob171123 said:

    It could be worse. He could have used all divs or shudder a table-based layout.

    Why the table hate?
    Stupid people hate tables because they are stupid.  By "they" I mean the people, not the tables.

    What is the cause of smart people hating table-based layouts?



  • @toth said:

    @bstorer said:

    @Daid said:

    @bob171123 said:

    It could be worse. He could have used all divs or shudder a table-based layout.

    Why the table hate?
    Stupid people hate tables because they are stupid.  By "they" I mean the people, not the tables.

    What is the cause of smart people hating table-based layouts?

    A slavish devotion to the mythical god that is web standards.



  • http://www.mardiros.net/css-layout.html

    There are lots of articles that say CSS based layouts are better, for both accessibiliy and cross-browser compatibility.

    When I started web development about 7 years ago, I used table based layouts a lot, but they are restrictive, and tables themselves are quite quirky and less dependable than a standard CSS layout.  Also, when it comes to maintainability, CSS gives much more flexibility.  I highly recommend doing some research on this topic, if you can find any solid standards that support table based layout in today's webspace, I will shut my mouth.



  • @murdog said:

    http://www.mardiros.net/css-layout.html
    There are good reasons to not use tables for layout, but that article is rather awful. “During the compatibility analysis we see that on other browsers than Internet Explorer the table layout ‘breaks’”? This was accurate for a time—between 1999 and 2002, when “Almost standards” mode was created—and was caused by non-IE browsers following the standard and aligning images in table cells to the baseline (as they are treated everywhere else), instead of creating a special case that treated them as pseudo-block-level elements. It certainly doesn’t hold a candle to all of IE**’s myriad CSS layout bugs—peekaboo, double float-margin, guillotine bug, hasLayout—so saying that using tables is bad because it causes inconsistencies is a rather stupid argument.

    The principal issue with using tables for layout is accessibility—accessibility for disabled people, accessibility for automated tools (especially search engines), accessibility for the next guy that has to work on your fucking horrible 6-tables-deep nest of indecipherable, impossible garbage HTML. With display: table|table-row|table-cell now being supported in every browser (even IE!), you can have semantically valid markup and properly linearised content without using tables (which are supposed to be used to display 2-dimensional data sets), while still getting the benefits that a table-based layout can provide (like matching column heights without needing to use float hacks, background images, or JavaScript).

    CSS layout is still nearly as imperfect; float abuse is rampant, because it’s the only way to position content while still keeping it within the normal document flow. css3-layout will fix this problem, along with the issue of non-linear content, if/when it is finally released and implemented. Still, having content and style separated is an extremely valuable thing (think of MVC pattern vs Big ball of mud pattern), so it’s still better than using tables to define the layout.

    ** IE < 8. IE8 actually adheres closer to CSS 2.1 than Firefox 3.0, which is a little scary.



  • I agree whole heartedly with your maintainability and accessibility arguments, but I have still seen a lot of quirks when it comes to css.  Table's do no inherit the font css of the main page (at least in IE 7 anyways), which is kinda weird in and of itself.  You have to specificly apply it to the table in question.  Tables are LESS quirky now with browsers conforming to standards, but I am saying they are less predictable than CSS.  I think the main point to take away from the article is that table based layouts have always been less dependable than CSS based layout, and even though they are more dependable now, they are still not as good as CSS based layouts.

    On that note, I admit my experience with Table based layouts is very limited.  I stopped using tables for anything other than data A LONG time ago, so you probably know better than me.



  • @murdog said:

    Tables should only be used for data... using them for layouts or anything else like that is just wrong wrong wrong!

    We all display data on websites.



    Last time someone told me "Tables for layout BAD!" I showed them my website, asked them, "how do I do this in CSS?" And all they could say is, "but, your website uses a table layout! That's WRONG!" Wrong from a designers view maybe. But my development cycle was short and every user was very happy. And the competition, who had a pretty CSS design, lacked the flexibility I had, and thus I could add features way faster.



    "Tables BAD!" my ass.



  • @Daid said:

    "Tables BAD!" my ass
     

     

    COMPLETE BS... whoever you talked to who said this, doesn't know their damn CSS, there is only ONE thing you can't do easily in CSS that you can do in a table, and thats align vertically.  Anything else you can do in a table you can do in CSS EASY.

    Obviously you have never maintained someone else's crap table layout or else you would be singing a different tune.



  • @Daid said:

    Last time someone told me "Tables for layout BAD!" I showed them my website, asked them, "how do I do this in CSS?" And all they could say is, "but, your website uses a table layout! That's WRONG!" Wrong from a designers view maybe. But my development cycle was short and every user was very happy. And the competition, who had a pretty CSS design, lacked the flexibility I had, and thus I could add features way faster.
    I’d love to see this site. Also, adding new features quickly is easy when you aren’t taking the time to properly engineer your code in the first place—but then you have a much bigger problem in the future when the specifications change and suddenly you have to try to make it do something different, often at short notice. Or when another person comes in to replace you and has to deal with your confusing, unmaintainable spaghetti code.

     

    @murdog said:

    there is only ONE thing you can't do easily in CSS that you
    can do in a table, and thats align vertically.  Anything else you can
    do in a table you can do in CSS EASY.
    That’s not incredibly hard to do in CSS, even without “table-cell”. There are some things that tables make easier, but for every one thing they make easier there are at least two other things that are made more challenging (or even impossible). As I mentioned in my previous post, equal column heights are much easier to do using tables (though, again, not impossible to do with CSS). Column sizes that can’t be represented in decimal (eg. 3-columns, 6-columns, 7-columns) are another thing that doesn’t often work very well with CSS, because you end up with rounding errors. If you need to support legacy browsers, tables are often easier than trying to kludge fixes. But there are many things that you can’t do with tables for which there are no workarounds—you can’t push content outside the bounding box of the table cell, you can’t easily change the look and feel without heavily modifying the structure of the HTML, you can’t manage how content overflows (it won’t—ever), you can’t enforce a fixed width or height.



  • @murdog said:

    There are lots of articles that say CSS based layouts are better, for both accessibiliy and cross-browser compatibility.

    I'm convinced!

     

    @murdog said:

    When I started web development about 7 years ago, I used table based layouts a lot, but they are restrictive, and tables themselves are quite quirky and less dependable than a standard CSS layout.  Also, when it comes to maintainability, CSS gives much more flexibility.

    I disagree about maintainability and compatibility.  There are plenty of quirks and incompatibilities with floating divs.  You can spend a maddening amount of time getting the CSS just right and then you go back a week later to add some small element and BAM!, the whole thing collapses.  There are plenty of advanced layouts that are well-nigh impossible to achieve with only CSS.  What's more, many sophisticated, good-looking CSS layouts make use of terrible hacks that undermine the entire "no styling in markup" dictat that is the cornerstone of anal-retentive CSS Nazism.  Not that I'm opposed to using those hacks to accomplish the results I want, mind you, but it's annoying to be lectured by these people about "markup purity" when they produce HTML that violates the ideological standard they've set for everyone.

     

    From years of doing web stuff, I can say that table layouts, used well, don't make things any less compatible or maintainable.  I consider them another tool in my toolbox and when you strip away the appeals to strict ideology of the "no tables" crowd, there really isn't a good reason not to use them if they accomplish your goal.



  • @morbiuswilters said:

    @murdog said:

    There are lots of articles that say CSS based layouts are better, for both accessibiliy and cross-browser compatibility.

    I'm convinced!

     

    @murdog said:

    When I started web development about 7 years ago, I used table based layouts a lot, but they are restrictive, and tables themselves are quite quirky and less dependable than a standard CSS layout.  Also, when it comes to maintainability, CSS gives much more flexibility.

    I disagree about maintainability and compatibility.  There are plenty of quirks and incompatibilities with floating divs.  You can spend a maddening amount of time getting the CSS just right and then you go back a week later to add some small element and BAM!, the whole thing collapses.  There are plenty of advanced layouts that are well-nigh impossible to achieve with only CSS.  What's more, many sophisticated, good-looking CSS layouts make use of terrible hacks that undermine the entire "no styling in markup" dictat that is the cornerstone of anal-retentive CSS Nazism.  Not that I'm opposed to using those hacks to accomplish the results I want, mind you, but it's annoying to be lectured by these people about "markup purity" when they produce HTML that violates the ideological standard they've set for everyone.

     

    From years of doing web stuff, I can say that table layouts, used well, don't make things any less compatible or maintainable.  I consider them another tool in my toolbox and when you strip away the appeals to strict ideology of the "no tables" crowd, there really isn't a good reason not to use them if they accomplish your goal.

    Find me ONE article from someone who is well known to be knowledgeable to that states table layouts are the way to go, and I will believe this nonesense.  But in my experience, people who are making crap have absolutely no idea that they are doing so.  And in my years, every table layout has been nothing but that.



  • @snover said:

    @Daid said:

    Last time someone told me "Tables for layout BAD!" I showed them my website, asked them, "how do I do this in CSS?" And all they could say is, "but, your website uses a table layout! That's WRONG!" Wrong from a designers view maybe. But my development cycle was short and every user was very happy. And the competition, who had a pretty CSS design, lacked the flexibility I had, and thus I could add features way faster.
    I’d love to see this site. Also, adding new features quickly is easy when you aren’t taking the time to properly engineer your code in the first place—but then you have a much bigger problem in the future when the specifications change and suddenly you have to try to make it do something different, often at short notice. Or when another person comes in to replace you and has to deal with your confusing, unmaintainable spaghetti code.

    http://daid.mine.nu/rrodb/



    There you go. Note that it's no longer actively maintained, because everyone (my, the users, the community that used it) moved on a year ago. I never said it was pretty, I never said it was maintainable for other people (it isn't mainly because I didn't use a template engine like Smarty, not because I used tables) and I never said it was professional. But it was fast, feature rich and very usable.



    I had a lot of data that you could show in in different ways, as an experiment we also had this: http://daid.mine.nu/test/all.php with CSS doing our layout. Which looked great, it auto filled... but something is off. Some rows are not filled because some names go multi-line. I'm not that good with CSS, and I never will be (Embedded C programmer by trade) but nobody I encountered can tell me how to make that page look nice.





  • @murdog said:

    http://stackoverflow.com/questions/83073/why-not-use-tables-for-layout-in-html

    You need to work on your fallacious appeals to authority.  Namely, use a source that is actually considered authoritative by someone, somewhere.



  • @Daid said:

    http://daid.mine.nu/rrodb/
    Wait…somebody said they didn’t know how to do this in CSS? That’s embarrassing for them. The top bar would be made up of two lists, one whose elements float left and one whose elements float right (or, the second one could have its elements just be set to display inline and text-align right, to keep from needing to use an :after pseudo-element to clear the various floated elements.) The main section would have the “statistics” block floated left and the other with a left-margin equivalent to the size of the floated block to keep the left side in the same place after the float ends. If you want to ensure the border runs the entire length up regardless of which side is longer, you can set it as the right border on the left block and the left border on the right block and use a negative margin to get them to overlap. Alternatively, use display: table-cell. The footer login and copyright notice are just normal, everyday <div>s with no special stuff necessary. Is there something else specific here where someone couldn’t figure out?

    @Daid said:

    http://daid.mine.nu/test/all.php but nobody I encountered can tell me how to make that page look nice.
    Lucky you’ve met me here, then. Each of those <span> should be display: inline-block and vertical-align: top, with a defined width and float: none. That will give you a nice, fluid grid. (You should be using an unordered list in order to be semantically valid, not a div-span combo, which gives no indication that this content is a list.) Alternatively, you could use css3-multicol.

    P.S. Smarty sucks. PHP is a template language. You don’t need another one, unless you like your sites to be slow, or are allowing untrusted users to create templates for your site.



  • @morbiuswilters said:

    You need to work on your fallacious appeals to authority.  Namely, use a source that is actually considered authoritative by someone, somewhere.

    I AM showing a post from a community of developers who hold eachother accountable for bad ideas.  UNTIL YOU provide me some valid arguments other than the fact that you can hack a site together and say its good only to YOURSELF, then you need to stop posting BS.  If you have some actual facts, then I may be interested in hearing them, but until then, stop trying to just WIN the debate and start actually contributing something intelligent.



  • P.P.S. In additional to lacking semantic validity, the pages you’ve linked to are completely invalid HTML and they keep fucking up Firefox as it tries to churn through the tag soup. You should really fix that.

    P.P.P.S. murdog and morbs (can I call you morbs? no? oh well :)), you two need to just admit that you’re in love and get it over with. NO MORE FIGHTING GUYS.



  • @snover said:

    P.P.S. In additional to lacking semantic validity, the pages you’ve linked to are completely invalid HTML and they keep fucking up Firefox as it tries to churn through the tag soup. You should really fix that.

     

    That's precisely why using tags semantically with css-based layout is better than table-based layout. Instead of needlessly typing a lot of <tr> and <td> tags, just type tags that actually mean something for the content you are writing. Then, when you need to go back in and make a change, you know exactly where you need to go in the html or the css. Need to make a change in this paragraph? Go to the <p> element in your html instead of going to the fifth row and seventh cell in your layout table. Need to change the font of the text in that paragraph? Change it directly in the css.

    Also, once you have a good working knowledge of css, making the layout for your website will not be as difficult as everyone makes it out to be. It will be as difficult as deciding how many rows and how many columns you need to make a particular design appear the way it should in browsers, and it will certainly be easier than nested tables.



  • @murdog said:

    I AM showing a post from a community of developers who hold eachother accountable for bad ideas.  UNTIL YOU provide me some valid arguments other than the fact that you can hack a site together and say its good only to YOURSELF, then you need to stop posting BS.  If you have some actual facts, then I may be interested in hearing them, but until then, stop trying to just WIN the debate and start actually contributing something intelligent.

    The only "facts" you have are opinions of like-minded people.  This does nothing to impress me.  And unlike you, I actually get paid to do this for a living and have worked on projects bigger than the page for your lesbian aunt's folk band.  On the other hand, your random capitalizations are pretty good evidence.  Mainly, though, I just don't give a fuck if you want to be a retard and I'm too busy to do more than mock you and hope it produces more dribbling stupidity I can laugh at.



  • @morbiuswilters said:

    your lesbian aunt's folk band
    That's a terrible way to refer to Steven Tyler and Aerosmith.



  • Well, first of all, when you resort to that kind of crap, your obviously beaten.  TWO (random capitalization yay), I don't need to justify my experience to the likes of you. THREE (even more random capitalization yay!!), what scares me is that you do this for a living, I feel sorry for the people who pay you.

    Lastly, I will actually address the topic at hand, html layouts are bad, CSS is the future period, I dare anyone to challenge that.  And as for you morbiuswrilters representing the east coast, I think... you still haven't provided me with any solid evidence that your table based layout is better.  All you have really done is talk about some sorta lesbian aunt you think I have.  Thats actually really weird that you would come up with that kind of insult, of all the things you could have picked... that... lesbian aunt, wow... genius.

    P.S.

    Dribble dribble, LOL!



  • Well, so much for rational discourse.



  • @murdog said:

    And as for you morbiuswrilters representing the east coast, I think...

    All you have really done is talk about some sorta lesbian aunt you think I have.  Thats actually really weird that you would come up with that kind of insult, of all the things you could have picked... that... lesbian aunt, wow... genius.

     

    You hatin' on the east coast? I have to assume you're from California, in which case it's entirely likely you have a lesbian aunt.



  • @snover said:

    Well, so much for rational discourse.

    That hope died for me several posts ago.  I'd rather just torment this guy for our amusement.  What's wrong with you, don't you like amusement?



  • @murdog said:

    Lastly, I will actually address the topic at hand, html layouts are bad, CSS is the future period, I dare anyone to challenge that.

    Don't forget to JAM IT.



  • @morbiuswilters said:

    @murdog said:

    Lastly, I will actually address the topic at hand, html layouts are bad, CSS is the future period, I dare anyone to challenge that.

    Don't forget to JAM IT.

     

    And use frames -- they securely mediate.



  • @murdog said:

    Well, first of all, when you resort to that kind of crap, your obviously beaten.
    Danth strikes again...



  • @morbiuswilters said:


    That hope died for me several posts ago.  I'd rather just torment this
    guy for our amusement.  What's wrong with you, don't you like
    amusement?

     LOL, yeah right, now that you have nothing clever to come back with, you were just playing around, yes so amusing.

     P.S. Didn't say I disliked the east coast, I just think this guy, and his profile message are lame.



  • @morbiuswilters said:

    What's wrong with you, don't you like amusement?
    It seems like torturing a helpless animal to me. But, I guess since it’s only their ego that hurts, I won’t be totally opposed to it.



  • @snover said:

    @morbiuswilters said:

    What's wrong with you, don't you like amusement?
    It seems like torturing a helpless animal to me. But, I guess since it’s only their ego that hurts, I won’t be totally opposed to it.



    HA! So much for talking about the facts... instead everyone seems to want to take the simpleton's side.  Whatever... there is no real torment here, frankly, I could care less what you people think.



  • @murdog said:

    HA! So much for talking about the facts... instead everyone seems to want to take the simpleton's side.
    I’m pretty sure I spent most of my time presenting facts and arguments for the use of CSS for layout. Then you started in with appeals to authority, followed by argumentum ad populum, followed by ad hominem, when morbiuswilters disagreed with what you were saying.



  • @snover said:

    I’m pretty sure I spent most of my time presenting facts and arguments for the use of CSS for layout.

    You did well and although I wish I had more time to debate it with you, I've had this exact same argument a dozen times with many different people and it never really goes anywhere.  I say that tables are another tool in the toolbox, that sometimes they are the simpler, more elegant way of accomplishing things and that the convolutions to produce certain layouts without tables can result in markup that is even more hideous and counter to the principle of separating presentation from data.  I base this on extensive experience and if your experience hasn't shown you that, then I envy you.  I wish this shit worked the way it was supposed to, the way some people fanatically insist it must work, but that's just not been my experience.  And from my previous debates over this, I'm not the only one.

     

    Also, I wish I could respond to you about the ACLU thing, but I have even less time for debating politics on TDWTF than I do for debating tech.  Apologies, and I'm sure you had decent, well-reasoned points that probably wouldn't have changed my fundamental beliefs.



  • @morbiuswilters said:

    @snover said:

    I’m pretty sure I spent most of my time presenting facts and arguments for the use of CSS for layout.

    You did well and although I wish I had more time to debate it with you, I've had this exact same argument a dozen times with many different people and it never really goes anywhere.  I say that tables are another tool in the toolbox, that sometimes they are the simpler, more elegant way of accomplishing things and that the convolutions to produce certain layouts without tables can result in markup that is even more hideous and counter to the principle of separating presentation from data.  I base this on extensive experience and if your experience hasn't shown you that, then I envy you.  I wish this shit worked the way it was supposed to, the way some people fanatically insist it must work, but that's just not been my experience.  And from my previous debates over this, I'm not the only one.

     

    Also, I wish I could respond to you about the ACLU thing, but I have even less time for debating politics on TDWTF than I do for debating tech.  Apologies, and I'm sure you had decent, well-reasoned points that probably wouldn't have changed my fundamental beliefs.

     

    This will be my last post, and I will not be participating in this forum any longer.  I asked the administrator to remove my account as I will no longer be using it.  But I to have had extensive experience, and I have used table layouts, and sure, maybe they are a tool in your toolbox, and that is fine, all the more power to you.  But here is where I am coming from, when I switched jobs about a year ago, I was forced into using some framework that I barely knew, and given my prior knowledge in development, I thought ALL this framework did was make things more difficult, and make me frustrated.  A few of my remarks where, "Why do we even use this, its just a pain in the butt, it just makes my life more difficult".  Which was true, it did make my job more difficult, and it took longer.  But as I learned the framework, and I saw how it function, what it was doing was infact BREAKING my bad habits for me.  When I tried to do something that wasn't a good idea, it wouldn't work, and I would pound my head against the wall for a day or so.  So about a year later now, i have learned the framework, realized how I should actually be developing, and I am a MUCH better developer as a result of that.  If your wondering what the framework is, its Hibernate.

    Same here with CSS and table layout, table layout gets you were you need to go, but its simply not regarded as good practice, and you may say that people are being stardards nazi's for saying you should NOT use table layout.  But they are simply stating facts based on horrible maintenance experience they have had with table based layout pages.  Now I am NOT saying you do bad work, what I am saying is that with Table layouts, the potential is there for bad work to happen.  Given your experience, you can probably make a table based layout work, and work clean... but I am guaranteeing you, you are in the 1% of developers.

    So what I am saying is that, standards are there to help us help ourselves, they aren't the silver-bullet that will change a bad developer into a good, but the are there to help you not create a monster.  That being said, standards can still be abused by terrible developers in many different ways, in which case being actually good at what you do is important.  So, if you are good at what you do, great, because, sadly, there are too few good developers out there.



  • @murdog said:

    This will be my last post, and I will not be participating in this forum any longer.  I asked the administrator to remove my account as I will no longer be using it.

    You know what would be really awesome?  If you stopped participating in life.  Just let God know he can remove your account as you will no longer be using it.



  • @morbiuswilters said:

    I wish this shit worked the way it was supposed to, the way some people fanatically insist it must work, but that's just not been my experience.  And from my previous debates over this, I'm not the only one.
    One of the nice things about no longer having to support IE6 for most projects* is that, by and large, things do work the way they are supposed to. IE7 is still a piece of shit, but at least you can work around most of it without needing the sacrifice of a goat. Personally, I do still use tables, rarely, for building complex form layouts, because even with CSS, presentation is not truly independent and there’s no point in trying to deny it. (If CSS was a truly complete presentation layer, the order of elements would not matter to document flow. css3-layout fixes this, though who knows how long it will take for it to become a recommendation and finally implemented, if ever.)

    Honestly, there is a lot to complain about in both CSS as well as in the more generic realm of the tools that are used to build Web apps, but in keeping to the scope of this discussion I think it’s more dangerous to start saying “using tables for layout is OK”, even with caveats, and here’s why: People that actually genuinely know what they’re doing already know that there are times when it makes sense to make exceptions. However, there are a great many more people that, given any sort of justification, will end up going into Dreamweaver and creating 6-tables-deep nested monstrosities, using the reasoning that “[reputable source] said it was OK”, and suddenly we’re back to the late-90s. So, that’s the principal reason that I myself tend to blanket statement “tables are not for layout, don’t use tables”.

     

    @morbiuswilters said:

    Also, I wish I could respond to you about the ACLU thing, but I have even less time for debating politics on TDWTF than I do for debating tech.  Apologies, and I'm sure you had decent, well-reasoned points that probably wouldn't have changed my fundamental beliefs.
    Well, if you ever change your mind, I’m sure you can resurrect the thread in the future and get harassed by everyone for replying to an old topic. :) For what it’s worth, I certainly don’t think the ACLU is perfect by any means, I just don’t personally know of a more equitable constitutional rights organization. Either way, I don’t really see TDWTF as being a place to have a level-headed discussion on any political matters (or possibly any matters at all, heyo ;)). I just wish that the discussions here didn’t seem to often devolve into ad hominem shouting matches, with polarising political statements seemingly thrown in to shut people down a little more. But, what can you expect from a hodgepodge of maladjusted software engineers (myself included)? :)



  • @morbiuswilters said:

    @murdog said:

    This will be my last post, and I will not be participating in this forum any longer.  I asked the administrator to remove my account as I will no longer be using it.

    You know what would be really awesome?  If you stopped participating in life.  Just let God know he can remove your account as you will no longer be using it.

    Nice, your a sad pathetic excuse for a human being.  When god made
    you, he not only threw out the mold, he shit on it, burned it and threw
    it in to the sun.  Keep hiding behind your computer you little piece of crap, because one day, you may have to actually be responsible for the bullshit you sling through the web.



  • @murdog said:

    This will be my last post, and I will not be participating in this forum any longer.  I asked the administrator to remove my account as I will no longer be using it.
    @murdog said:
    Nice, your a sad pathetic excuse for a human being.  When god made
    you, he not only threw out the mold, he shit on it, burned it and threw
    it in to the sun.  Keep hiding behind your computer you little piece of crap, because one day, you may have to actually be responsible for the bullshit you sling through the web.

     So much for that "last post" shit, then.



  • @snover said:

    If CSS was a truly complete presentation layer, the order of elements would not matter to document flow. css3-layout fixes this, though who knows how long it will take for it to become a recommendation and finally implemented, if ever.
     

    I heard it would take until 2020 for it to get approved as a W3C standard, or maybe it was HTML 5, or both. Either way, they're not happening any time soon.

    Honestly, my opinion is that CSS is an art that definitely takes some skills to wield successfully, to the point where eventually you work more with the layout and less with the structure. When you're just starting with HTML, you do everything in the markup and css is just an afterthought that allows you to add cool effects to your text. As you learn more about the intricacies of css and acquire an eye for design, you make less html and spend a significant amount of development time on css. At the end though this will save you more time when it comes to changing the layout of your site since you will only need to change a central css file and you shouldn't need to touch the markup. I think that if you end up nesting div after div, then you're doing it wrong since instead of simplifying things by removing unneeded <tr> and <td> tags you just replaced them with a mess of nested divs.

    Ultimately it's just up to each web designer to do what comes easiest. If having the layout right there in the markup is easiest, by all means do it, it will save you time, save your clients money, and keep you employed. If having the layout in its own dedicated file works, then do that.

     

    P.S. I hate people arguing that IE, or anything Microsoft, is a piece of shit. Like it or not, but the majority of consumers disagree with you. Do you want to follow "standards" or do you want a large portion of the market to access your product? If you're complaining you just don't want it enough, so get another job.


Log in to reply
 

Looks like your connection to What the Daily WTF? was lost, please wait while we try to reconnect.