Re: Seybold column: Why Tables for Layout Is Stupid
Ned Bedinger wrote:
BTW, do distributed CSS files load more reliably than nested HTML tables?
I don't know if I would say load more reliably. I know that there can be rendering issues with table-based layouts because of the way that browsers render tables......it's been a while since I've looked into this, so I'm not entirely sure this still holds true.
The question I had (but did not articulate very well) was just my noodling about how distributed CSS might add to the potential for slow loading and 404 errors resulting from network and server latency and availability issues. But if the CSS resides on the web server (especially a virtual high-availabilty server), those potential problems are a lot closer moot.
Really, the benefit is in the code....easier to update, easier to maintain, easier for user agents to translate, smaller page sizes that save bandwidth and improve load time.
...
The thing to note here is that all of that formatting information would have to go into EVERY SINGLE PAGE with table layouts (unless you are using CSS to format the table layout). This means that if you had a site with 1000 pages, you would have to update 1000 pages. With CSS, you update one page, the CSS file.
I concur, the separation of content from re-usable presentation declarations (fancy buzz-word description for CSS) sounds like a boon to page development and maintenance. I want to work this way with all of my documentation deliverables.
Regards,
Ned Bedinger
doc -at- edwordsmith -dot- com
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
WebWorks ePublisher Pro for Word features support for every major Help format plus PDF, HTML and more. Flexible, precise, and efficient content delivery. Try it today! http://www.webworks.com/techwr-l
Create HTML or Microsoft Word content and convert to Help file formats or printed documentation. Features include single source authoring, team authoring,
Web-based technology, and PDF output. http://www.DocToHelp.com/TechwrlList
---
You are currently subscribed to TECHWR-L as archive -at- infoinfocus -dot- com -dot-
To unsubscribe send a blank email to techwr-l-unsubscribe -at- lists -dot- techwr-l -dot- com
or visit http://lists.techwr-l.com/mailman/options/techwr-l/archive%40infoinfocus.com
To subscribe, send a blank email to techwr-l-join -at- lists -dot- techwr-l -dot- com
Send administrative questions to admin -at- techwr-l -dot- com -dot- Visit
http://www.techwr-l.com/techwhirl/ for more resources and info.
References:
Re: Seybold column: Why Tables for Layout Is Stupid: From: Sean Hower
Previous by Author:
Re: Seybold column: Why Tables for Layout Is Stupid
Next by Author:
Re: Release notes, customer support and product managers
Previous by Thread:
RE: Seybold column: Why Tables for Layout Is Stupid
Next by Thread:
Re: Seybold column: Why Tables for Layout Is Stupid
Search our Technical Writing Archives & Magazine
Visit TechWhirl's Other Sites
Sponsored Ads