100% Height???

[jonpb]

*consistent* support for CSS among browsers *cough cough MS IE cough*... is lacking. It's true enough, however, that your goal can be accomplished with CSS. While I wouldn't recommend leaving the DOCTYPE out, that too is a known hack for the 100% height gig.

I agree with "cat': Too many nested tables are problematic, however a simple construct is fine and provides a solid, consitent layout across browsers/platforms

[Nummi_G4]

Originally Posted by Cat

"tables are evil" only if you use 473 of them on one page just for the perfect positioning of all those blank spacer gif's.

Table are evil for layout. Don't forget about semantics. Tables have a purpose... not for layout.

[Cat]

From the article I linked:

"Using pure CSS in all circumstances will have to wait until all browsers support CSS fully. If you've honestly tried to use CSS but encountered serious browser incompatibilities in the rough positioning of the content blocks, you should switch to minimal tables."

I completely subscribe to that.

[texanpenguin]

I believe in CSS wherever possible. I don't believe in floating DIVs within DIVs to move a relatively positioned DIV outside the block of the absolutely positioned DIV which is fixed to the viewport, just to achieve an effect that four cells in a table can achieve.

I think it's all about balance. When I use tables, it's only ever in a situation where the table could survive happily if it had a border (that is, it's used for layout, but not assembly of slices).



A million nested DIVs are equally as stupid as a million nested tables.

[Pengu]

ok. sorry. i forgot some people still use netscape 4 and IE 3. there is nothing that tables will allow you to do that can't be done with CSS.