Table VS div VS AP div - Macromedia Dreamweaver

This is a discussion on Table VS div VS AP div - Macromedia Dreamweaver ; I am used to designing with tables. Never used div or AP div. Is there something inherently wrong with just using tables?...

+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 8 1 2 3 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 73

Table VS div VS AP div

  1. Default Table VS div VS AP div

    I am used to designing with tables. Never used div or AP div. Is there something inherently wrong with just using tables?

  2. Default Re: Table VS div VS AP div

    Yes.

  3. Default Re: Table VS div VS AP div

    No. But you can create most layouts with less and simpler code that is
    easier to maintain using divs. Not AP divs. They are not suitable for
    general page layout on special purpose and then only if you really
    understand how to use them.

    That's the Cliff Notes answer.

    --

    Walt


    "jjx" <webforumsuser@macromedia.com> wrote in message
    news:g85ccp$ol2$1@forums.macromedia.com...
    >I am used to designing with tables. Never used div or AP div. Is there
    >something inherently wrong with just using tables?




  4. Default Re: Table VS div VS AP div

    "jjx" <webforumsuser@macromedia.com> wrote in message
    news:g85ccp$ol2$1@forums.macromedia.com...
    >I am used to designing with tables. Never used div or AP div. Is there
    >something inherently wrong with just using tables?


    Using table for layout goes against what is considered best practices for
    the last few years.

    --
    Thierry
    Articles and Tutorials: http://www.TJKDesign.com/go/?0
    --
    http://developer.yahoo.com/ helps you build applications and mashups


  5. Default Re: Table VS div VS AP div


    "jjx" <webforumsuser@macromedia.com> wrote in message
    news:g85ccp$ol2$1@forums.macromedia.com...
    >I am used to designing with tables. Never used div or AP div. Is there
    >something inherently wrong with just using tables?


    No, there is not anything inherently wrong with just using tables. Like
    anything else, they should be used carefully and sparingly. However, there
    are a lot of advantages to using CSS-positioned <div>s (and other HTML
    tags).


    --
    Patty Ayers | www.WebDevBiz.com
    Free Articles on the Business of Web Development
    Web Design Contract, Estimate Request Form, Estimate Worksheet
    --


  6. Default Re: Table VS div VS AP div

    OK, well after going through a few tutorials on the subject Im at a bit of a
    loss. It appears DIV is normally used to section off say a header and/or
    "main/body area" and/or a footer and add content to it. So where is the big
    advantage? is it CSS applicability, browser compatibility or ??? ...Sorry I
    missing the obvious advantage?


  7. Default Re: Table VS div VS AP div

    Hi J,

    >I am used to designing with tables. Never used div or AP div. Is there
    >something inherently wrong with just using tables?


    Not to me! The main thing is whatever works the cleanest - if it takes a
    bunch of hacks and convolutions and twice the code to create a CSSp layout,
    I'd say do it with tables.

    Aloha,

    Jerry




  8. Default Re: Table VS div VS AP div

    Hi J,

    > OK, well after going through a few tutorials on the subject Im at a bit of
    > a
    > loss. It appears DIV is normally used to section off say a header and/or
    > "main/body area" and/or a footer and add content to it. So where is the
    > big
    > advantage? is it CSS applicability, browser compatibility or ??? ...Sorry
    > I
    > missing the obvious advantage?


    After reading your post I did a test using one of DW's CSS templates, vs. a
    table layout with the same look. The results? CSS: 9kb, tables: 3 kb. Plus
    the CSS layout won't display as desired under all circustances (if the
    sidebar has more content then the main text area, for example).

    Aloha,

    Jerry




  9. Default Re: Table VS div VS AP div

    On Fri, 15 Aug 2008 18:54:35 -1000, "FatCat" <info@mauiwebdesigns.com>
    wrote:


    >
    >After reading your post I did a test using one of DW's CSS templates, vs. a
    >table layout with the same look. The results? CSS: 9kb, tables: 3 kb. Plus
    >the CSS layout won't display as desired under all circustances (if the
    >sidebar has more content then the main text area, for example).
    >

    But if css is used correctly, they are in an external file. On a site
    with multiple pages (like most web sites I've seen ), then lets say
    that the css 6k and the html 3 k - for the first page - maybe it is 9k
    to download, but then the css is kept in the browser cache, so each
    subsequent page is then about 3k.

    But the advantage is much more than that - the html is semantically
    much more logical with css controlled pages - or should be, so more
    accessible.

    And although it is implied the page is controlled by <div's> - these
    div's need to be used sparingly too - you can use other html as hooks
    to apply css, like <hn>, <p>, <ul>, <li> etc - not to mention tables
    used for tabular data.



    --

    ~Malcolm~*...
    ~*

  10. Default Re: Table VS div VS AP div

    ..oO(jjx)

    >OK, well after going through a few tutorials on the subject Im at a bit of a
    >loss. It appears DIV is normally used to section off say a header and/or
    >"main/body area" and/or a footer and add content to it. So where is the big
    >advantage? is it CSS applicability, browser compatibility or ??? ...Sorry I
    >missing the obvious advantage?


    CSS is

    * more efficient: It only has to be downloaded once and is cached in the
    browser. Additionally many things can be kept short by using inheritance
    and the cascade. By using advanced selectors you can even keep the HTML
    code clean and don't have to clutter it with dozens of classes or IDs.

    * more flexible and powerful: There are many things possible with CSS
    which are more complicated or even impossible to do with HTML alone.

    * easier to maintain: You just have to edit a single file to change the
    appearance of an entire site. Additionally you could create some default
    stylesheets and then simply re-use them for a new site, which saves a
    lot of time.

    * usually also faster to render than a table: Many browsers are not able
    to incrementally render a table. If an entire page is put into a table,
    some users might see nothing until the entire pages has been downloaded.

    Micha

+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 8 1 2 3 ... LastLast