Much smaller than a browser update download isn't it. Oh the humanity, you have to download something over the Internet. Are you still using 1.0 browser clients? Maybe you get the updates shipped to you directly on CD?
Come again? This is the most basic of layouts so why would it make a difference whether you used tables or CSS?
Precise control with CSS in contrast to tables. Make changes site wide as we completed the project. Less code. Way less code. So faster to create. Layout code in one place, not in multiple pages. In addition. Faster downloads and renders than tables. HTML is free of layout code so it is adaptable to multiple devices, such as portable devices for example. Degrades nicely in browsers that don't support CSS. Smaller file sizes. Easier, way easier, to make changes in the future. And changes will be made as well as additions, such as images. Far easier to add these elements and reformat the CSS code then reformat the tables in each page and move content around to fit into the new tables
Tables, I find, are harder to work with, are far less precise, do not render reliably, etc. If you feel otherwise, then we all have our preferences.
Re:Why use XHTML when IE cannot parse it?
on
The Future of HTML
·
· Score: 1
I understand that was misused widely, but with XHTML, how the heck am I supposed to display a table of data?
As has been said. With a table. Where are you getting the idea that tables are not allowed in XHTML? They're not supposed to be used for layout, but they are supposed to be used for tabular data. Tables themselves haven't been deprecated. Using tables for layout has been, as it were.
If CSS layout is so "powerful" how come it's so difficult to get a 3-column layout to extend the background colours in the 1st and 3rd columns to line up with the bottom line of the content?
It can be done but it does have it's problems. So I guess this just simply dismisses all the other benefits of CSS and for some reason, all the problems of tables are dismissed because you can do this. Wonderful.
No one is suggesting that CSS is all powerful, but man alive, it's far more powerful than tables.
And how intuitive is using a table for layout? Tables are for tabular data. However, many of us are used to using them and going through elaborate methods like using spacer gifs, row spans and column spans, setting alignment here and there, using sliced up graphics (now that's super duper intuitive), etc.
There are definitely parts of CSS that aren't intuitive, just as with HTML. Both are in evolution, and guess what, the bugs and methods are ironed out.
Now that I'm used to CSS I'd never go back. I had to make a layout in a table for a lesson deprecated production methods. It was unfathomnably painful, counter-intuitive, limited in options, and clunky.
Example: CSS took the totally simple CENTER tag and "improved" it with kludgy auto-width margins that don't work in IE5/Win. (Yes, I know that's Microsoft's fault, but even if it was reliable it'd seem like a step backwards.)
It is reliable outside of IE5/Win. And yes, it isn't intuitive, but once you know how it's done its easy to make up a class called center, or include this standard line in any of your style declarations to avoid using a center tag or class=center. The benefits in this case far out weigh the counter-intuitiveness and in some cases you can simply use text-align: center. Of course, in some cases you cannot.
And if you want to center something vertically, it's back to tables.
Not really. It's back to a CSS defined table cell which uses far less code than an HTML table.
Want to use CSS to create a standard two- or three-column layout plus footer that works cross-platform? Have fun!
This is remarkably easy to make work in any standards compliant browser and far moreso than building a clunky, code heavy table.
Just because you don't know how to do it doesn't mean it's not easy. CSS, like all technology (i.e. Linux, PHP, JavaScript, etc.) is evolving and it has some rough spots. Thankfully, some of these will be ironed out in the next revision and we'll have a new set of rough spots to deal with. This is largely how everything evolves as far as I know.
As a distinct product, yes, it would be sad as it addresses a very specific market. I use Photoshop for the Internet, Video, Broadcast, and Print, so I'm only too delighted to see support for each aspect. However, if I only needed one, then a separate product would do well. Unfortunately, it probably will be merged.
What I wonder about is whether or not ImageReady will go.
I apologize because I can no longer find the link to the interview I read some time ago, but basically, a person from Adobe mentioned that Photoshop and ImageReady would soon be one program, or integrated and that both programs had been developed by separate teams. Since it's already a separate team project, perhaps they can integrate some of the features of Fireworks when the big integration takes place.
In regard to competition, I think this is very sad indeed. We each have our preferences and I for one, have grown very fond of the lawsuit inspired Macromedia interfaces of late. They may well be Adobe-ized...
I use it a lot for photographs. The quality is (usually) much better, and most of the time the file size is smaller as well.
Can you let us in (or me at least) on the secret? I have a file (a photgraph dominated by brown, red, and green tones, it's old and washed out) that is 300 x 379 pixels. As a jpg, set to a high value (less compression) in Photoshop, I get a file size of 19kb. The same file, as PNG (24-bit) is 172kb, which is just about 9 times largger, rather than smaller. I've not yet experienced the opposite. Is there something I'm doing wrong? Is Photoshop not the tool for this?
I'd agree if English isn't a first language and even moreso if not a second or third. However, if it is a first, and you've gotten a decent education, it's easy. I don't find it all that different than modern English and can easily follow a play or a film and the plays themselves of course. Indeed, it's remarkable how close it is to modern English. The references to politics, people, and what not can be difficult, as can be, mildly, the order of words, but this is as true for a book written this year in a different part of the world (i.e. Scotland or California.)
That these and other works should be made accessible is not being disputed. The manner in which they are being made accessible is. I know plenty of people now, and in school in years past, who didn't have a problem with it. Has language changed so much in the last 10 years that new generations of native English speakers can't understand literature in the same language they've been exposed to and using since they began to speak?
"the sort of software you'd expect any MP3 player vendor to provide with their hardware"
This is precisely why myself, and many others I know, refuse to get anything in the iPod line. We prefer players that you simply plugin and they are seen as another harddrive. No extra software required.
Of course, different people, different preferences.
There's that, and sound quality, where the iRiver is superior as well (not to mention support for more formats.)
According to this article http://www.museekster.com/allofmp3faq.htm [museekster.com] AllOfMP3 is operating legallly in Russia. Near the bottom of the page, it says Moscow police investigated them, and prosecutirs found nothing wrong.
Prosecutors in Russia often find nothing wrong with human sex traffic dealers as well...
I recently took the plunge and went back to ATI after hearing their drivers had much improved. After far too many VPU errors I ditched them again and went back to nVidia. Is it just me that has these problems? I wonder if the same driver issues will come up in the SLI cards.
The product should come with this protection. iRiver packages a case with some of their models.
The reason? They're selling a portable device that will be exposed to a variety of conditions. Best to include a case for protection... Startling idea!
That's exactly what I did with my Windows machine. I got a virus protection program after I purchased the system to protect my investment. Of course, we'll never see any sort of complaints about having to do something like that will we?
An OS at an affordable price that runs on hardware that you could also buy at an affordable price, as opposed the the price of Mac's back in the day.
Many companies do what Microsoft does, using combinations of other people's technologies and ideas. Where are all the anti-Honda threads? Afterall, they used DOHC engines, that are derivatives from Renault, who orginally designed the system. Oh my, Honda sucks!
Well, it's all relative, as such things always are. It was precisely the kind of show I wanted to watch. Others disagree, others agree. I really enjoy Enterprise and put it second only to DS9. The worst series in my opinion was Voyager.
I'm of the belief that taking it from syndication to a station that is not widely available, or at least to a station that won't expose the show nationwide as did syndication is the single largest factor.
Let's face it, we can nitpick to our hearts' relative desire about each show. There have been stinkers in each series but what series doesn't have them?
As for the references to using sex this confuses me. Has anyone ever seen the original series? Kirk gets it almost every episode and the women on the show were, for the time I believe, far more provactive than what we get on Enterprise or Voyager.
"Wrong, time is worth whatever value you give to it."
And therefore it can't be wrong since, as you rightly state, it's subjective. If you'd rather spend time building a computer than fishing the time you'd spend fishing is lost when you could have been spending it on a much more valuable activity, like building a computer that helps you make money and saving a lot of money in building it as compared to buying a packaged system.
Put it together in the evening, during off hours. It's not like you're making $120/hour 24/7. What if you enjoy putting things together like that?
It hardly takes 5 hours (though mileage varies so it's entirely subjective). It took me 15 mintues to price out the parts via the Internet. 1/2 hour to assemble. 1/2 hour for OS install. Various times for applications installation (Adobe/Macromedia/Mozilla).
Futhermore, you know exactly what you have, furthermore, time is not wasted on repairs should something go wrong with the Apple for example. That said, I've never had anything go wrong with the PCs or Apples I've used. Others have. Mileage varies.
Slashdot Mirror
Much smaller than a browser update download isn't it. Oh the humanity, you have to download something over the Internet. Are you still using 1.0 browser clients? Maybe you get the updates shipped to you directly on CD?
Precise control with CSS in contrast to tables. Make changes site wide as we completed the project. Less code. Way less code. So faster to create. Layout code in one place, not in multiple pages. In addition. Faster downloads and renders than tables. HTML is free of layout code so it is adaptable to multiple devices, such as portable devices for example. Degrades nicely in browsers that don't support CSS. Smaller file sizes. Easier, way easier, to make changes in the future. And changes will be made as well as additions, such as images. Far easier to add these elements and reformat the CSS code then reformat the tables in each page and move content around to fit into the new tables
Tables, I find, are harder to work with, are far less precise, do not render reliably, etc. If you feel otherwise, then we all have our preferences.
As has been said. With a table. Where are you getting the idea that tables are not allowed in XHTML? They're not supposed to be used for layout, but they are supposed to be used for tabular data. Tables themselves haven't been deprecated. Using tables for layout has been, as it were.
If you run this page: http://www.oneofakindpasta.com/winemenu/default.as p through the HTML validator at http://validator.w3.org/ it valides as Strict XHTML 1.0.
It is the only table in the entire site. The layout is done with CSS of course and was much easier for it, including, of course, changes and printing.
If CSS layout is so "powerful" how come it's so difficult to get a 3-column layout to extend the background colours in the 1st and 3rd columns to line up with the bottom line of the content?
It can be done but it does have it's problems. So I guess this just simply dismisses all the other benefits of CSS and for some reason, all the problems of tables are dismissed because you can do this. Wonderful.
No one is suggesting that CSS is all powerful, but man alive, it's far more powerful than tables.
I recently finished this site: http://www.oneofakindpasta.com/
There is one table for the wine list since, well, it's a table. It would have been a nightmare making this with tables for the layout in general.
And how intuitive is using a table for layout? Tables are for tabular data. However, many of us are used to using them and going through elaborate methods like using spacer gifs, row spans and column spans, setting alignment here and there, using sliced up graphics (now that's super duper intuitive), etc.
There are definitely parts of CSS that aren't intuitive, just as with HTML. Both are in evolution, and guess what, the bugs and methods are ironed out.
Now that I'm used to CSS I'd never go back. I had to make a layout in a table for a lesson deprecated production methods. It was unfathomnably painful, counter-intuitive, limited in options, and clunky.
It is reliable outside of IE5/Win. And yes, it isn't intuitive, but once you know how it's done its easy to make up a class called center, or include this standard line in any of your style declarations to avoid using a center tag or class=center. The benefits in this case far out weigh the counter-intuitiveness and in some cases you can simply use text-align: center. Of course, in some cases you cannot.
And if you want to center something vertically, it's back to tables.Not really. It's back to a CSS defined table cell which uses far less code than an HTML table.
Want to use CSS to create a standard two- or three-column layout plus footer that works cross-platform? Have fun!This is remarkably easy to make work in any standards compliant browser and far moreso than building a clunky, code heavy table.
Just because you don't know how to do it doesn't mean it's not easy. CSS, like all technology (i.e. Linux, PHP, JavaScript, etc.) is evolving and it has some rough spots. Thankfully, some of these will be ironed out in the next revision and we'll have a new set of rough spots to deal with. This is largely how everything evolves as far as I know.
As a distinct product, yes, it would be sad as it addresses a very specific market. I use Photoshop for the Internet, Video, Broadcast, and Print, so I'm only too delighted to see support for each aspect. However, if I only needed one, then a separate product would do well. Unfortunately, it probably will be merged.
What's bloated about it? It has to serve a diverse userbase with diverse uses and objectives. Feel free to ignore features you have no need for.
What's difficult about it?
Agreed. I like Macromedia's interfaces far better. It's sad that consolidation is limiting our choices.
I've had the opposite experience. Dreamweaver's code is clean. GoLive's a mess.
I apologize because I can no longer find the link to the interview I read some time ago, but basically, a person from Adobe mentioned that Photoshop and ImageReady would soon be one program, or integrated and that both programs had been developed by separate teams. Since it's already a separate team project, perhaps they can integrate some of the features of Fireworks when the big integration takes place.
In regard to competition, I think this is very sad indeed. We each have our preferences and I for one, have grown very fond of the lawsuit inspired Macromedia interfaces of late. They may well be Adobe-ized...
I realize all the above. What program do you use that allows you to tweak the PNGs so much?
Can you let us in (or me at least) on the secret? I have a file (a photgraph dominated by brown, red, and green tones, it's old and washed out) that is 300 x 379 pixels. As a jpg, set to a high value (less compression) in Photoshop, I get a file size of 19kb. The same file, as PNG (24-bit) is 172kb, which is just about 9 times largger, rather than smaller. I've not yet experienced the opposite. Is there something I'm doing wrong? Is Photoshop not the tool for this?
I'd agree if English isn't a first language and even moreso if not a second or third. However, if it is a first, and you've gotten a decent education, it's easy. I don't find it all that different than modern English and can easily follow a play or a film and the plays themselves of course. Indeed, it's remarkable how close it is to modern English. The references to politics, people, and what not can be difficult, as can be, mildly, the order of words, but this is as true for a book written this year in a different part of the world (i.e. Scotland or California.)
That these and other works should be made accessible is not being disputed. The manner in which they are being made accessible is. I know plenty of people now, and in school in years past, who didn't have a problem with it. Has language changed so much in the last 10 years that new generations of native English speakers can't understand literature in the same language they've been exposed to and using since they began to speak?
"the sort of software you'd expect any MP3 player vendor to provide with their hardware"
This is precisely why myself, and many others I know, refuse to get anything in the iPod line. We prefer players that you simply plugin and they are seen as another harddrive. No extra software required.
Of course, different people, different preferences.
There's that, and sound quality, where the iRiver is superior as well (not to mention support for more formats.)
According to this article http://www.museekster.com/allofmp3faq.htm [museekster.com] AllOfMP3 is operating legallly in Russia. Near the bottom of the page, it says Moscow police investigated them, and prosecutirs found nothing wrong.
Prosecutors in Russia often find nothing wrong with human sex traffic dealers as well...
I recently took the plunge and went back to ATI after hearing their drivers had much improved. After far too many VPU errors I ditched them again and went back to nVidia. Is it just me that has these problems? I wonder if the same driver issues will come up in the SLI cards.
I agree. Exactly my point...
The product should come with this protection. iRiver packages a case with some of their models. The reason? They're selling a portable device that will be exposed to a variety of conditions. Best to include a case for protection... Startling idea!
That's exactly what I did with my Windows machine. I got a virus protection program after I purchased the system to protect my investment. Of course, we'll never see any sort of complaints about having to do something like that will we?
Windows is susceptable to viruses. Buy a virus scanning program. Simple!
An OS at an affordable price that runs on hardware that you could also buy at an affordable price, as opposed the the price of Mac's back in the day.
Many companies do what Microsoft does, using combinations of other people's technologies and ideas. Where are all the anti-Honda threads? Afterall, they used DOHC engines, that are derivatives from Renault, who orginally designed the system. Oh my, Honda sucks!
I'm of the belief that taking it from syndication to a station that is not widely available, or at least to a station that won't expose the show nationwide as did syndication is the single largest factor.
Let's face it, we can nitpick to our hearts' relative desire about each show. There have been stinkers in each series but what series doesn't have them?
As for the references to using sex this confuses me. Has anyone ever seen the original series? Kirk gets it almost every episode and the women on the show were, for the time I believe, far more provactive than what we get on Enterprise or Voyager.
"Wrong, time is worth whatever value you give to it."
And therefore it can't be wrong since, as you rightly state, it's subjective. If you'd rather spend time building a computer than fishing the time you'd spend fishing is lost when you could have been spending it on a much more valuable activity, like building a computer that helps you make money and saving a lot of money in building it as compared to buying a packaged system.
Put it together in the evening, during off hours. It's not like you're making $120/hour 24/7. What if you enjoy putting things together like that? It hardly takes 5 hours (though mileage varies so it's entirely subjective). It took me 15 mintues to price out the parts via the Internet. 1/2 hour to assemble. 1/2 hour for OS install. Various times for applications installation (Adobe/Macromedia/Mozilla). Futhermore, you know exactly what you have, furthermore, time is not wasted on repairs should something go wrong with the Apple for example. That said, I've never had anything go wrong with the PCs or Apples I've used. Others have. Mileage varies.