W3.CSS
-
Does anyone have experience with W3.CSS? I'm considering using the framework for future web pages.
Gus Gustafson
-
Does anyone have experience with W3.CSS? I'm considering using the framework for future web pages.
Gus Gustafson
Yes. It is, IMHO, the best responsive CSS framework to start with (until you do your own)...
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge". Stephen Hawking, 1942- 2018
-
Yes. It is, IMHO, the best responsive CSS framework to start with (until you do your own)...
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge". Stephen Hawking, 1942- 2018
Thanks for the thought. In reviewing the specification, it appears that I will have to wean myself from <table>s and replace them with <div>s.
Gus Gustafson
-
Thanks for the thought. In reviewing the specification, it appears that I will have to wean myself from <table>s and replace them with <div>s.
Gus Gustafson
gggustafson wrote:
I will have to wean myself from <table>s and replace them with <div>s.
I wonder about that. Unless <table> is being deprecated, I would use the one that's most convenient and mostly easily controlled at the time. The table model is rather convenient for php generated output from database record sets. Very predictable rendering. Rather than wean yourself away, just master both methods of handling the problem and use what you think is best.
"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits." - Albert Einstein
"If you are searching for perfection in others, then you seek disappointment. If you are seek perfection in yourself, then you will find failure." - Balboos HaGadol Mar 2010
-
Thanks for the thought. In reviewing the specification, it appears that I will have to wean myself from <table>s and replace them with <div>s.
Gus Gustafson
<table>s for tabular data;<div>s for layout. Thankfully, between grid and flexbox, it's getting much easier than it used to be to do complicated layouts without resorting to tables. :) Progressively Enhancing CSS Layout: From Floats To Flexbox To Grid — Smashing Magazine[^]
"These people looked deep within my soul and assigned me a number based on the order in which I joined." - Homer
-
Thanks for the thought. In reviewing the specification, it appears that I will have to wean myself from <table>s and replace them with <div>s.
Gus Gustafson
As Richard told. Do not let the specification override your professional judgment... TABLE is designed for tabular data - use it that way...
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge". Stephen Hawking, 1942- 2018
-
gggustafson wrote:
I will have to wean myself from <table>s and replace them with <div>s.
I wonder about that. Unless <table> is being deprecated, I would use the one that's most convenient and mostly easily controlled at the time. The table model is rather convenient for php generated output from database record sets. Very predictable rendering. Rather than wean yourself away, just master both methods of handling the problem and use what you think is best.
"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits." - Albert Einstein
"If you are searching for perfection in others, then you seek disappointment. If you are seek perfection in yourself, then you will find failure." - Balboos HaGadol Mar 2010
As I delve deeper and deeper into W3.CSS, I am beginning to find myself confronted with difficulties when laying out the structure of the page using <div>s. This is the same problem that I've faced earlier. I'm leaning toward performing layout with <table>s and ignoring W3.CSS.
Gus Gustafson
-
<table>s for tabular data;<div>s for layout. Thankfully, between grid and flexbox, it's getting much easier than it used to be to do complicated layouts without resorting to tables. :) Progressively Enhancing CSS Layout: From Floats To Flexbox To Grid — Smashing Magazine[^]
"These people looked deep within my soul and assigned me a number based on the order in which I joined." - Homer
I disagree totally with "<table>s for tabular data; <div>s for layout." This paradigm has been invalid since it was first uttered. It is semantics - a play on words. I use <table>s for layout and for tabular data. My experience with using <div>s has been that they are far more costly than are <table>s for layout. I'm reminded of a student of mine who claimed that a binary search was always the most efficient search technique for a table. Unfortunately, he neglected the cost of sorting the table and maintaining the sorted order during CRUD operations. In the past, I've suggested that the "table" tag should have been named "grid". Then this foolish non-argument would never had arisen. The <table> versus <div> arguments were raised by proponents of a strict interpretation of the separation of structure from presentation from behavior. With the advent of the CSS grid, that separation no longer holds.
Gus Gustafson
-
As Richard told. Do not let the specification override your professional judgment... TABLE is designed for tabular data - use it that way...
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge". Stephen Hawking, 1942- 2018
-
I disagree totally with "<table>s for tabular data; <div>s for layout." This paradigm has been invalid since it was first uttered. It is semantics - a play on words. I use <table>s for layout and for tabular data. My experience with using <div>s has been that they are far more costly than are <table>s for layout. I'm reminded of a student of mine who claimed that a binary search was always the most efficient search technique for a table. Unfortunately, he neglected the cost of sorting the table and maintaining the sorted order during CRUD operations. In the past, I've suggested that the "table" tag should have been named "grid". Then this foolish non-argument would never had arisen. The <table> versus <div> arguments were raised by proponents of a strict interpretation of the separation of structure from presentation from behavior. With the advent of the CSS grid, that separation no longer holds.
Gus Gustafson
gggustafson wrote:
I use <table>s for layout
And obviously don't give a stuff about users on tablets or phones! :doh:
gggustafson wrote:
My experience with using <div>s has been that they are far more costly than are <table>s for layout.
That was true 18 years ago. It may even have been true 5 years ago. But between Flexbox and Grid, it's now almost trivial to create flexible and responsive layouts without resorting to tables.
"These people looked deep within my soul and assigned me a number based on the order in which I joined." - Homer
-
As I replied to Richard, I disagree with his position. Now my problem is simply to decide if W3.CSS is worth the trouble.
Gus Gustafson
HTML have a group of elements called semantic elements (like TABLE) that by their name define for what they are there. DIV and SPAN are the anti-semantic elements and for that are perfect candidates for layout, especially if you are in need for responsive layout. It is true that you can redefine the behavior of every element - if you are go deep enough - but even than you can't break the expected parent-child hierarchy of certain semantic elements, like TABLE. While it is absolutely true, that building a TABLE based layout is very quick and clean, but it won't hold the moment you are moving to small screens (responsiveness)... I have over 15 years of experience with these things, and tried every option - DIVs are the best for layout...
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge". Stephen Hawking, 1942- 2018
-
HTML have a group of elements called semantic elements (like TABLE) that by their name define for what they are there. DIV and SPAN are the anti-semantic elements and for that are perfect candidates for layout, especially if you are in need for responsive layout. It is true that you can redefine the behavior of every element - if you are go deep enough - but even than you can't break the expected parent-child hierarchy of certain semantic elements, like TABLE. While it is absolutely true, that building a TABLE based layout is very quick and clean, but it won't hold the moment you are moving to small screens (responsiveness)... I have over 15 years of experience with these things, and tried every option - DIVs are the best for layout...
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge". Stephen Hawking, 1942- 2018
Thank you for your thoughts.
Gus Gustafson
-
gggustafson wrote:
I use <table>s for layout
And obviously don't give a stuff about users on tablets or phones! :doh:
gggustafson wrote:
My experience with using <div>s has been that they are far more costly than are <table>s for layout.
That was true 18 years ago. It may even have been true 5 years ago. But between Flexbox and Grid, it's now almost trivial to create flexible and responsive layouts without resorting to tables.
"These people looked deep within my soul and assigned me a number based on the order in which I joined." - Homer
I am not impressed by ad hominum arguments.
Gus Gustafson
-
I am not impressed by ad hominum arguments.
Gus Gustafson
And I am not impressed by someone crying "ad hominum argument!" in response to perfectly valid criticism of their design decisions. :doh: In future, I suggest you learn the meaning of "ad hominum" before trying to hide your technical debt behind it.
"These people looked deep within my soul and assigned me a number based on the order in which I joined." - Homer
-
And I am not impressed by someone crying "ad hominum argument!" in response to perfectly valid criticism of their design decisions. :doh: In future, I suggest you learn the meaning of "ad hominum" before trying to hide your technical debt behind it.
"These people looked deep within my soul and assigned me a number based on the order in which I joined." - Homer
You have terminated our discussion. Have a good life.
Gus Gustafson
-
HTML have a group of elements called semantic elements (like TABLE) that by their name define for what they are there. DIV and SPAN are the anti-semantic elements and for that are perfect candidates for layout, especially if you are in need for responsive layout. It is true that you can redefine the behavior of every element - if you are go deep enough - but even than you can't break the expected parent-child hierarchy of certain semantic elements, like TABLE. While it is absolutely true, that building a TABLE based layout is very quick and clean, but it won't hold the moment you are moving to small screens (responsiveness)... I have over 15 years of experience with these things, and tried every option - DIVs are the best for layout...
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge". Stephen Hawking, 1942- 2018
Come on. Table can easily be made responsive through clever CSS classes on its rows and columns. If you were to move say a column in next row, all you need is a not so little JS function which can basically rewrite HTML based on screen size. See how easy it is. Now where is "let me write a senseless solution while pretending to be serious and genius" icon?
"It is easy to decipher extraterrestrial signals after deciphering Javascript and VB6 themselves.", ISanti[^]
