efficacious Posted September 3, 2008 Share Posted September 3, 2008 wth are you guys talking about... i never said tables were better... I specifically said CSS was better.. I was simply saying how CSS layouts are technically a hack.. Because how can you sit there and tell me that defition list tags were designed for layout creation? lol you guys are crazy. I agree with you that CSS layouts are better then table layouts.. LMFAO, `eff ps(I've been coding for about 5yrs..) I wouldn't consider myself a "Master" at these languages but I do have alot higher knowledge then your average. I currently know/use these languages XML XHTML CSS PHP JavaScript ASP AJAX SOAP ect... as well a long list of programs, hardware technologies, networking.. everything... I try to spread myself across all of it the best I can. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bronzemonkey Posted September 3, 2008 Share Posted September 3, 2008 I've probably been using HTML/CSS/JS/PHP/AJAX for less time than all of you. CSS is not a hack. It was specifically introduced by the w3c to get away from the "hack" of using tables to present and layout websites. Instead, you use semantically correct html (to accurately convey structural meaning to the information that a site is composed of) and then use CSS to present this information visually - that includes changing position and appearance. Because how can you sit there and tell me that defition list tags were designed for layout creation? Who is using definition lists for layout? I've never seen a site layout created using definition lists...it certainly wouldn't be semantically correct. If someone uses CSS to position the contents of a dt to the left of the contents of a dd (assuming a dl is the semantically correct)...then that is perfectly in keeping with what CSS was introduced to allow. HTML is now there to give meaning to content, not to present it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
efficacious Posted September 3, 2008 Share Posted September 3, 2008 ok please for the love of god.. don't respond to my posts if your not going to read them. I AM NOT CALLING CSS A HACK!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ! !! !!! ! !... I AM NOT SAYING TABLE LAYOUTS ARE BETTER THEN CSS LAYOUTS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I AM saying that "CSS LAYOUTS" are technically hacks. And they are. And EVERYONE uses definition list tags to create CSS Layouts.. its part of making them.. Is is possible to make one without using definition list tags yes.. if you want to purely use Div tags.. Is that what happens?.. NO.. everyone usually uses Def list tags AND Divs. Don't worry guys your precious CSS isn't going anywhere ... and nobody is bashing it.. I'm simply stating the truth here.. CSS Layouts are generally HACKS. Hacks in the term of using an element in a way other then what ORIGINALLY intended. Def tags were ORIGINALLY intended to be used for ?....anyone...anyone... CORRECT!!!! for LISTING things.. GOLD STAR! THUMBS WAYYYY UP!! WHOOOOOOOOOO So you can quit whining now..CSS will be just fine.. phew... `eff Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mchl Posted September 3, 2008 Share Posted September 3, 2008 Everyone uses definition list tags for CSS layouts? I'm not much into CSS design, so that's probably why I've never seen such a layout, but if they do... geeeez... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
efficacious Posted September 3, 2008 Share Posted September 3, 2008 yes they do.. <dt> <ul> etc... these are def list tags Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
efficacious Posted September 3, 2008 Share Posted September 3, 2008 i want somone to show me a site that doesn't use these tags in the structure Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mchl Posted September 3, 2008 Share Posted September 3, 2008 I know HTML enough to know what tahs are these I just can't imagine why would someone use them for layout ??? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
efficacious Posted September 3, 2008 Share Posted September 3, 2008 most commonly i see them being used for menus and such... I'm not going to respond ne more tho.. cuz i'm bored of talking about this. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mchl Posted September 3, 2008 Share Posted September 3, 2008 Just examined Wikipedia. Yes they do use it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DarkWater Posted September 3, 2008 Share Posted September 3, 2008 most commonly i see them being used for menus and such... I'm not going to respond ne more tho.. cuz i'm bored of talking about this. I love how you say that you WEREN'T calling CSS a hack, yet this line was in your post: so if you really think about it.. the new "awesome" "better" css layouts are actually just html hacks. Please, don't try to make comebacks that make no sense. You were wrong, live with it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mchl Posted September 3, 2008 Share Posted September 3, 2008 I can understand his logic, although I couldn't until very end... It's hard not to agree, that CSS is often being used in a hackish way. But then, which web technology isn't? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DarkWater Posted September 3, 2008 Share Posted September 3, 2008 I can understand his logic, although I couldn't until very end... It's hard not to agree, that CSS is often being used in a hackish way. But then, which web technology isn't? It's not used in a hackish way at all. HTML is a markup language, and it just merely divides the page into semantically correct blocks, because the whole idea of XML is for a "semantic web". Once you have accurately added the correct semantic tags, CSS allows you to visual present them in an appealing way while not reducing the page's compatibility for future, XML-centered technologies. </rant> Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mchl Posted September 3, 2008 Share Posted September 3, 2008 I do understand it. But the whole point of this discussion is that 'everyone' (as efficacious says) or at least some of the people that design webpages do it in a wrong (i.e. hackish) way. A bit off topic... I think my first webpage is still available on the web. Uses tabled layout, <font> tags, and a little bit of CSS for 'hacks' like text under text Good times, good times Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DarkWater Posted September 3, 2008 Share Posted September 3, 2008 I do understand it. But the whole point of this discussion is that 'everyone' (as efficacious says) or at least some of the people that design webpages do it in a wrong (i.e. hackish) way. A bit off topic... I think my first webpage is still available on the web. Uses tabled layout, <font> tags, and a little bit of CSS for 'hacks' like text under text Good times, good times Lol, actually, a business club at my school (FBLA, which is actually nationwide, lol) has the most old-school web page ever, so I just started remodeling it. Right now (I didn't update it yet...), it has a light blue background, dark blue text, tables, font tags, made in Microsoft Frontpage (LOL), and uses those crappy Microsoft Frontpage hover-buttons. I laugh so hard every time I see it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KevinM1 Posted September 3, 2008 Share Posted September 3, 2008 This is an odd conversation... Anyhoo, I don't think I've ever seen a site use <dt> in the context of layout. An unordered list and individual list items for navigation (<ul> and <li> respectively for any newbs following along)? Yes. But this stems from those elements making the most sense semantically in that situation (lists of hyperlinks). Unfortunately, HTML doesn't have elements describing navigation structure, so that's the best we can do for now. Hell, you could use a host of <span> elements for top-of-the-page horizontal navigation, or a bunch of small <p> or <div> elements for vertical navigation. No one's stopping you. But, logically, a paragraph really isn't the place for navigation, unless you need an inline textual reference to something else. To get back to the topic of the thread, <div> elements are the cornerstone of CSS-controlled layouts. They make sense semantically (they are divisions of your document), and are themselves pretty simple (just big blocks). Like others have said, the key in forming the layout is in correctly using the tools CSS gives you. To master these tools, you need to know three things: 1. HTML document flow (i.e., how do the elements naturally fit around each other) 2. How CSS positioning options affect document flow 3. The Box Model (how block elements are structured -- in other words, how their margins, borders, padding, and overall size are formed) Make sure you don't neglect the Box Model. I struggled for months with CSS positioning when I first started because I didn't know the Box Model existed. Once I stumbled upon a site describing it, everything else clicked into place. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bronzemonkey Posted September 3, 2008 Share Posted September 3, 2008 yes they do.. <dt> <ul> etc... these are def list tags A definition list tag is <dl>. That can contain the children <dt> and <dd> - it is unique in having list items consisting of 2 parts. A definition list is semantically correct, in HTML4, for term/definition-description data. In HTML5 (at the moment) it is going to be semantically correct for any name-value data...more a "description list". In either case, it is semantically incorrect to use a <dl> for navigation. The <ul> tag is semantically different. It is an unordered list...which is precisely what the vast majority of navigation links are. It is semantically correct to present a site's navigation as an unordered list. It is nothing to do with css. Even if you were not styling your HTML document, an unordered list is most appropriate for navigation. Just because CSS can be used to alter the presentation of this list does not mean that a list is being used for "layout". The HTML 4.01 spec itself says: http://www.w3.org/TR/html401/struct/lists.html#h-10.4 The DIR element was designed to be used for creating multicolumn directory lists. The MENU element was designed to be used for single column menu lists. Both elements have the same structure as UL, just different rendering. In practice, a user agent will render a DIR or MENU list exactly as a UL list. We strongly recommend using UL instead of these elements. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
haku Posted September 4, 2008 Share Posted September 4, 2008 And EVERYONE uses definition list tags to create CSS Layouts.. its part of making them.. It seems you are confused as to what is (X)HTML and what is CSS. (X)HTML is for content. It has nothing to do with layout. You couldn't position or format a DL tag in HTML even if you wanted to - it has no length/width/height/size attributes at all. None exist. The DL tag is exclusively a container for holding a piece of data, in this case a list of definitions. That's all, there isn't anything more or less to it. CSS is (usually) used to format (X)HTML elements. CSS cannot hold data. You couldn't add a piece of data to a CSS declaration even if you wanted to. However, with CSS, you can add the formatting to a piece of existing data. So you can take that DL tag that you created in (X)HTML, and you can move it around, add font formatting, set a width, and/or set a size. This has nothing to do with the data. This is not a hack, this is what they do. Using tables to position elements was a hack. It was making do with what was at hand. It wasn't the proper way to use tables, but there wasn't really another option. It worked great until a proper system came around. To try to claim that CSS is a hack, because it wasn't around when the web started, is like trying to claim a ferrari is a hack of a car, because they weren't around when the first cars were made. I think we all know that a ferrari isn't a hack of a car, rather it's a piece of high-precision machinery. CSS was made to do what it does. It's not like laying out pages with tables where there just wasn't anything better, it was actually created for the purpose of presentation. If something is being used for the purpose it was made to be used for, then it isn't a hack. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JasonLewis Posted September 4, 2008 Share Posted September 4, 2008 I was going to write something big, but not anymore. I'll admit this, I've been coding layouts for a shizolla of a long time. Well, not that long, but long before CSS was good. I used to do table layouts, as did everyone and I still did for many years, even with CSS making it's way to the top. I just couldn't be bothered to learn how to structure a layout with CSS as I thought tables were easy enough. But eventually I made the turn to CSS and I have to say, it is 1 million times better then what tables were. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lonewolf217 Posted September 4, 2008 Author Share Posted September 4, 2008 I got my answer about 40 posts ago so I am just going to mark this topic solved to stop the arguement All I really wanted was the answer that went something like "You still use tables to display tabular data, but you use CSS for normal layouts as well as customization of html tags across pages" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
haku Posted September 4, 2008 Share Posted September 4, 2008 The thread went off on its own tangent, but it was fun. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
efficacious Posted September 4, 2008 Share Posted September 4, 2008 most commonly i see them being used for menus and such... I'm not going to respond ne more tho.. cuz i'm bored of talking about this. I love how you say that you WEREN'T calling CSS a hack, yet this line was in your post: so if you really think about it.. the new "awesome" "better" css layouts are actually just html hacks. Please, don't try to make comebacks that make no sense. You were wrong, live with it. dark you need to take your own advice... apparently you cannot read. you quoted the whole sentece but you did not read it... notice it says "CSS LAYOUTS" not css ... so Please, dont try to make comebacks that make no sense, your wrong, live with it. LMFAO Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DarkWater Posted September 4, 2008 Share Posted September 4, 2008 I sincerely wished that made sense. =( Anyway, let this thread die. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
haku Posted September 4, 2008 Share Posted September 4, 2008 It really doesn't make sense at all. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DarkWater Posted September 4, 2008 Share Posted September 4, 2008 It really doesn't make sense at all. Yeah, like honestly. I have no idea what he was talking about. But whatever. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.