"darrel" <notreal@notreal.com> wrote in message
news:g6a27k$cgu$1@forums.macromedia.com...
>> It's a design issue. Sometimes, you just want the text to be at the
>> bottom of the section, on top of a background image that springs upwards.
>
> The best way to not fight CSS it work within it's abilities. Design around
> the medium you are workin in.

As the designer, I don't think I should be catering to the tools. It should
be the other way around. The tools are there to serve *us*.

> And yea, sometimes a table is just the trick needed.

In this, and many other cases, it sure still seems to be. =)

Regardless of how uncool it may be in the eyes of the cool kids in the
schoolyard.

mjs wrote:
> "Osgood" <notavailable@thisaddress.com> wrote in message
> news:g69mqa$ku$1@forums.macromedia.com...
>> There are all sorts of tricks that can be used to 'initially' place the
>> text/element at the foot of a <div> i.e., using padding, using height on
>> the <div> using 100% height on html and body BUT all will fail at some
>> stage when the content 'grows' in other parts of the design.
>>
>> There is NO css equal to aligning an element to the bottom like can be
>> achieved when using a table...so I don't align anything to the bottom when
>> undertaking a web design. I say that's bad because it can sometimes
>> compromises the design I want to achieve...but I can't have both...I can
>> choose between the lesser of two evils and using <divs> instead of tables,
>> I believe, come out on top in this senario.
>
> Doesn't anyone find it ridiculous that we can't bottom-justify text in 2008,
> unless we go back to 1995 technology?

Yes.

> How do the people who make these decisions keep forgetting stuff like this?
> Tables would be all but obsolete if not for the fact that they can occuppy
> 100% of a viewable area dynamically (which divs still cannot do), and can
> justify their content in any manner imaginable.

The problem with <divs> are they are independent which means they are
not affected by content in other <divs> whereas table cells are WHICH on
some occassions, albeit few, can be desirable to achieve what is required.

I believe in the next generation of css you can get <divs> to work more
like tables. However this is some way off being mainsteam yet in terms
of all the back browsers that still need support.

> Again, I ask... how many more years of people continuing to complain about
> having to go back to tables do the people making the decisions need before
> they simply incorporate the functionality in divs?

To be honest I think as Darrel says you need to make the decision and
work within what ever method you choose.

Personally I don't find I need to bottom align anything...its just not
that critical.

> <div style="width:100%; height 100%"></div>
>
> Or..
>
> <div style="text-align:bottom"></div>
>
> I know we can't do either of these things right now, but I find it
> ridiculous that we can't. TPTB keeps finding new ways to wow us, while
> completely ignoring the basics that are forcing some of us to continue to
> mix divs with tables in our layouts.

I think mixing and matching is very acceptable.

> I can't "simulate" bottom-justification via top-padding because the text
> being justified is dynamic, not static.

..oO(mjs)

>"darrel" <notreal@notreal.com> wrote in message
>news:g6a27k$cgu$1@forums.macromedia.com...
>>> It's a design issue. Sometimes, you just want the text to be at the
>>> bottom of the section, on top of a background image that springs upwards.
>>
>> The best way to not fight CSS it work within it's abilities. Design around
>> the medium you are workin in.
>
>As the designer, I don't think I should be catering to the tools. It should
>be the other way around. The tools are there to serve *us*.

You still have to cater for the environment, which in this case is the
WWW. Some things are simply not possible there or don't make any sense,
regardless of how good the designer is.

Micha

"Michael Fesser" <netizen@gmx.de> wrote in message
news:tn3h849oa64ojqdqovoa01mq6unkpql32k@4ax.com...
> .oO(mjs)
>
>>As the designer, I don't think I should be catering to the tools. It
>>should
>>be the other way around. The tools are there to serve *us*.
>
> You still have to cater for the environment, which in this case is the
> WWW. Some things are simply not possible there or don't make any sense,
> regardless of how good the designer is.

In those cases, I agree with you. But in *this* case, they ARE possible...
with tables.

Which, IMHO, makes it non-sensical to rethink your design in order to
accomodate the limitations of divs, simply because 'tables' is considered a
dirty word in this schoolyard (for reasons I've yet to comprehend; as long
as tables allow you to do things divs don't, I don't think anyone using
tables should be looked down upon).

I say let those people take it up with the powers that be if their precious
divs can't handle such simple tasks as 100% height, or vertical alignment of
interior content. Tables were doing this with their eyes closed since before
most of today's designers learned how to drive.

"Osgood" <notavailable@thisaddress.com> wrote in message
news:g6a2uk$d9s$1@forums.macromedia.com...
> mjs wrote:
>>
>> Doesn't anyone find it ridiculous that we can't bottom-justify text in
>> 2008, unless we go back to 1995 technology?
>
> Yes.
>
>> How do the people who make these decisions keep forgetting stuff like
>> this? Tables would be all but obsolete if not for the fact that they can
>> occuppy 100% of a viewable area dynamically (which divs still cannot do),
>> and can justify their content in any manner imaginable.
>
> The problem with <divs> are they are independent which means they are not
> affected by content in other <divs> whereas table cells are WHICH on some
> occassions, albeit few, can be desirable to achieve what is required.

But couldn't everyone see, even back in 1997 when CSS and DIVs were bring
introduced, that the internet was going Web 2.0, with newspaper/column-style
websites becoming the norm? I think everyone in this newsgroup saw it
coming, especially with the advent of talkback/comment features in the
footers of said columns.

Over a decade later, and people are *still* hacking their way clumsily with
div's to do what tables were doing -- and continue to do -- so galantly. The
2 or 3-column vertical layout has become more than just the norm... it
represents at least 90% of what's out there. And yet we continue to see
tutorials teaching us the acrobatics needed to make these liquid layouts
work using divs.

No acrobatics were needed with tables. Instead of introducing divs to the
world, the powers that be should've simply refined tables.

Imagine being able to control the overflow in a cell so that it continues in
the following column. That alone would have revolutionized the way these
websites work in ways words haven't even been invented to express.

As for the absolute positioning perks, that could have been applied to ALL
objects, INCLUDING tables... making divs almost immediately obsolete.

Sorry for the venting, but I just can't believe no one saw these issues
coming back in 1997 -- let alone isn't doing anything to address them in
2008.

On Thu, 24 Jul 2008 14:34:26 -0400, "mjs" <no@thanks.com> wrote:

>Which, IMHO, makes it non-sensical to rethink your design in order to
>accomodate the limitations of divs, simply because 'tables' is considered a
>dirty word in this schoolyard (for reasons I've yet to comprehend; as long
>as tables allow you to do things divs don't, I don't think anyone using
>tables should be looked down upon).

Actually, I think you'll find that *most* people here use a more
pragmatic approach. I'm sure you can find zealots that will argue
passionately one way or the other, but most people will tell you to
use what works for what you need. For most designs vertical centering
or bottom of the window positioning are not really necessary. However,
if you require that, then use a table. The one thing you will here
around here is to construct your tables in a reasonable manner. Don't
litter them profusely with colspans or row spans and avoid very deeply
nested tables. Other than that, simply use the approach that
accomplishes what you feel you need.

Gary

..oO(mjs)

>"Michael Fesser" <netizen@gmx.de> wrote in message
>news:tn3h849oa64ojqdqovoa01mq6unkpql32k@4ax.com.. .
>> .oO(mjs)
>>
>>>As the designer, I don't think I should be catering to the tools. It
>>>should
>>>be the other way around. The tools are there to serve *us*.
>>
>> You still have to cater for the environment, which in this case is the
>> WWW. Some things are simply not possible there or don't make any sense,
>> regardless of how good the designer is.
>
>In those cases, I agree with you. But in *this* case, they ARE possible...
>with tables.

Correct. And

display: table-cell

exists as well to emulate the table rendering with other non-table
elements. So you can't blame it on CSS. The only problem with this
approach - as usual - are the guys from Redmond.

>Which, IMHO, makes it non-sensical to rethink your design in order to
>accomodate the limitations of divs, simply because 'tables' is considered a
>dirty word in this schoolyard (for reasons I've yet to comprehend; as long
>as tables allow you to do things divs don't, I don't think anyone using
>tables should be looked down upon).

Agreed. I also use little, simple, non-nested tables for displaying non-
tabular data from time to time, but I always try to avoid such "blind
tables". In most cases you're more flexible with another code structure
and some CSS.

Micha

"Gary White" <reply@newsgroup.please> wrote in message
news:aqjh845jq1i1c9d26s3kretrtk16f61r5c@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 24 Jul 2008 14:34:26 -0400, "mjs" <no@thanks.com> wrote:
>
>>Which, IMHO, makes it non-sensical to rethink your design in order to
>>accomodate the limitations of divs, simply because 'tables' is considered
>>a
>>dirty word in this schoolyard (for reasons I've yet to comprehend; as long
>>as tables allow you to do things divs don't, I don't think anyone using
>>tables should be looked down upon).
>
> Actually, I think you'll find that *most* people here use a more
> pragmatic approach. I'm sure you can find zealots that will argue
> passionately one way or the other, but most people will tell you to
> use what works for what you need. For most designs vertical centering
> or bottom of the window positioning are not really necessary. However,
> if you require that, then use a table. The one thing you will here
> around here is to construct your tables in a reasonable manner. Don't
> litter them profusely with colspans or row spans and avoid very deeply
> nested tables. Other than that, simply use the approach that
> accomplishes what you feel you need.

Then we agree, because I continue to use divs where possible, simply because
it bloats the code less. I also like that you can scroll a div in a page,
and wish they'd have refined tables this way instead of throwing the baby
out with the bath water. That being said, I disagree with darrel's
suggestion to change my layout to accomodate the limitations of divs; when
tables are a perfectly viable solution.

Rethinking your layout simply because you'd have to use a table somewhere
instead of a div to get it working is akin to a carriage pulling a horse.
That kind of loyalty to the div borders on religious.

I'm sure the powers that be have a lot more to consider when introducing new
elements to HTML/CSS than we can even fathom... but I bet that if we asked
them if they regret putting all their eggs in the div concept and never
looking back at tables, at least some of them would admit they do.

I see a future where both technologies merge. Where you can split a div into
cells, or control the overflow of a table cell. And both the object and its
contents would be individually alignable.

I'm just surprised that future isn't now. It's been a decade. What true
advancements have been made?

On Thu, 24 Jul 2008 15:11:57 -0400, "mjs" <no@thanks.com> wrote:

>I'm just surprised that future isn't now. It's been a decade. What true
>advancements have been made?

A LOT! A decade ago, pages were a jumbled mass of tables and font
tags, there was no such thing as viewing a page on a cell phone or
Blackberry and using screen readers or other assistive devices on web
pages was unheard of.

Gary

..oO(mjs)

>Then we agree, because I continue to use divs where possible, simply because
>it bloats the code less. I also like that you can scroll a div in a page,
>and wish they'd have refined tables this way instead of throwing the baby
>out with the bath water.

In theory you can do the same with tables. 'thead', 'tfoot' and 'tbody'
elements exist, but browser support for scrolling them is _very_ poor.

>That being said, I disagree with darrel's
>suggestion to change my layout to accomodate the limitations of divs; when
>tables are a perfectly viable solution.

Tables might have some benefits, but also have their drawbacks. If an
entire page is put into a big table for example, not all browsers will
be able to render it incrementally. Some users will have to wait until
the entire page has been downloaded before they'll see anything.

So, tables as a purely presentational tool are OK now and then, but
should be used wisely & rarely. If there's another, not too complicated
way with CSS, you should use that instead.

Of course tables are still the correct way to markup tabular data. I'm
just mentioning this because some people think that tables are bad in
general and should always be avoided, which of course is totally wrong.

>I see a future where both technologies merge. Where you can split a div into
>cells, or control the overflow of a table cell. And both the object and its
>contents would be individually alignable.
>
>I'm just surprised that future isn't now. It's been a decade. What true
>advancements have been made?

Many. But browsers have to support them, which is the main problem.
Especially the IEs are lightyears behind Opera or FF and probably always
will be.

Micha