<DIV> vs <TABLE>

Practically that's true, but semantically not. But indeed people are free to use what they want. But if you design a website for a client with a table layout you don't have to complain if the client comes back after a while saying that he misses out a large chunk of potential clients because of inaccessibility or that you have to spend days to understand the layout's code.

Nobody's forcing things, only recommending.

 

I'm such a good webmaster I didn't know DIV's where so useful and can be used for tables......

Guess I'll be doing some testing with a div table at somepoint!

Cheers.

Ian

 

That's not really it ian_ok.
Tables should be used for tabular data, in that case divs can't replace them. But divs can and should replace tables for layouts.
A div alone can't do that of course, the point is that you use CSS to make your layout instead of tables, the divs are merely the glue between the CSS and your data which you wish to style.

I'm just telling this because I often see things like this:
<div class="title">This is a title</div>
and in css
.title {font-weight:bold; font-size:1.4em}

That's not correct. Only use divs of there isn't another element that makes sense. In this case h1, h2, etc. makes much more sense than a div.

Anyway, the problem with the whole discussion is that "DIVs vs TABLEs" isn't the right topic. In reality it's mixed presentation and markup vs separated presentation and markup or presentational html (fonts, tables for layouts) vs CSS. It's not the div tag that creates the layout, it's CSS

 

Thanks for that Instromaniac......

...Leaves me with many questions about my websites! Nevermind they work on all browser (except for one of my current posts where a new page is failing in Netscape!).

Guess I need sometime to sit down and study it a bit more!

 

Yeah, I know it leaves many open questions
If your websites work and if you're happy with it there's no need to go editing them, except if you really want to. There's nothing wrong with a page using tables, as long as you're happy with it

But if you do want to learn more about it take the CSS tutorial here:
http://www.w3schools.com/
And after that look for tutorials on "CSS positioning" and the CSS tutorials at http://www.alistapart.com/

 

I believe I already did. Advice to FLAN: Less preaching and more reading.

 

Same anwser than the_pm.
Use the right tool.
(easier to say than to do)

 

No, you didn't.

What any technology was designed to do is a historical fact. True?
A technology may do more than it was originally designed for. True?
Tables were generally accepted for layout when there was no other alternative. True?
CSS was designed specifically for describing presentation. True?
A table layout bloats code more so than a CSS layout. True?
A table layout is less adaptable to change (flexible/maintainable). True?
A table layout is less portable (screen readings, devices with low graphic capability). True?

Interesting comment from a person with a habit of posting statements that contradicts the absolute facts of the situation. These have been examples of either ignorance or deception on your part.

 

Repeating BS ad nauseum does not make it, FLAN.

As I said, do what you want... just stop preaching.

 

After laying out one of my first CSS site (and largest site I've created) using DIV's I'd say I'm a fan of it. It's great to be able to reuse pre-loaded CSS in various spots instead of having the user have to download the same code over and over. The benefits of using div's outweigh the con's IMO although some stuff will make you pull your hair out (like getting a site to look the same in IE, FF & Opera)

 

No facts. No rebuttals. Just insults and rants: so shocked.

 

Of course you shouldn't be trying to do that - you should make it look right in all browsers

 

Debating with a zealot or a block of wood is totally pointless, FLAN. The facts are already there. You however prefer to keep repeating your catechism over and over ad nauseum. It bores me.

 

My repeated statements always occur in response to your repeated statements. I had initially spent a mere two sentences stating my position (#9). Since then my posts have been correcting the inaccurate information that you repeat—factual information is objectively either right or wrong. Others in this thread have stated they prefer tables, and I had no response to that; any choice is fine as long as it is an informed one. I have also had no response to your own posts, minstrel, that express an opinion. But posts that contain false information will get a response from me. And if it is false information that you have posted before, then you are sure to get a response that you have heard before. That's simply how it goes.

 

*yawn*

As I said, boring and pointless. Enjoy the rest of the thread.

 

Just let's say that I fully agree with FeelLikeANut.
Now, let's switch to another topic: do you still use physical tags?

 

What do you mean with physical tags?

 

<b> versus <strong>
physical vs logical

 

Oh, I call them presentational

Well I hardly ever use presentational tags, only use tags when it makes sense to use it.
<b> Never makes much sense since you can use CSS to make your text bold. Strong shouldn't be used either for making text bold but to emphasize your text. If a screen reader encounters <strong> it will read it louder or put more emphasize on it.

 

If we didn't have compatibility issues with different browsers then we wouldn't have this vote. DIVs (CSS) are by far the best way to go for layout imho, however TABLEs are reliable and simple to implement.

T