[ale] OT: Can MS IE Really Be This Broken?

[George Carless]

On Mon, Sep 20, 2004 at 03:26:37PM -0400, attriel wrote:
> > I didn't look at the original email, so apologies if this isn't relevant
> > (but in most cases it tends to be):  tables should not be used to
> > control layout!  CSS is more than up to the job, and is the right tool
> > for the job.  Table-based layouts are a pain in the neck and are a nasty
> > hack.  And any time I hear talk of nested tables etc., I can only sigh..
> 
> I used to feel the same way, but then I tried to define a layout with 3
> columns at the top, followed by a few full-width areas.

Some of these things are difficult, especially due to browser 
limitations (i.e., IE.).. but there are generally ways to accomplish 
most things, and the power that CSS gives you more than compensates, 
IMHO.  Non-believers should probably pop along to 
http://www.csszengarden.com/ for.. enlightenment.
> 
> There is no way to do this in CSS (AFAICT) that allow all areas to be
> dynamically sized based on the quantity of the content.  The closest I
> could come had the 3 top parts stairstepping down the page, so it was like
> they were vertically stacked, but without being vertically stacked.

You should be able to come up with something.. I use three columns on 
the site I'm working on at the moment, which you can see at 
http://beyond.splinteredthing.com/ .. there's a bit of hackery at the 
moment, but it's broadly okay.  And the HTML source is so much cleaner 
without all of the table crap getting in the way.

Oh, and absolute positioning's not always such a terrible thing.. it 
certainly has its place, and if a few absolutely positioned elements is 
what it takes to get away from gnarly table stuff, I'm all for it.  I'm 
always working to improve my positional CSS/xhtml stuff, and I'm by no 
means an expert, but I'm absolutely sold on the notion that it's a 
better tool for the job than are tables.

--George