I usually try to stay out of evangelical CSS vs Tables discussions, but the posting below uses the same argument that I've seen over and over and it's usually successful as a discussion stopper. I paraphrase it as "If you really knew what you were doing then you wouldn't use tables." That's bunk. To me, slavish use and promotion of one tool and only one tool is an indicator of superficial expertise. Doesn't matter if that tool is CSS or tables or XML or Flash or .... Expertise is not an either/or, it's a integration of tools, applying each to their highest and best use. I still use tables for layout. Why? Because every site I've done for the past 5 years is dependent on dynamic data for navigation and display of content. Tables and rows and columns resize to fit the content requested. CSS does not resize and it can't because it's not content aware. That's the good/bad news of CSS and efforts to separate the content and display. Do I use CSS? Yes, I use it where ever I can, except positioning/layout. It's a wonderful gift to not have to scroll through hundreds of embedded, repetitive font attributes, to change one style in one place and have the change become instantly available site wide. I've also had to redo sites that some CSS wonk created and I can tell you that stripping out nested divs, usually used just to center a presentation or as a browser hack, and static sizes and multiple spans and coping with multiple, large CSS files (esp when there are styles that are never used or only used once) is more of a pain than managing layout tables. Look at the layouts featured on csszengarden.com and what do you find? Sites that are so focused on controlling the display that they make the content unusable, sites that use 1/3 -> 1/2 of the above the fold area for a graphical header, sites that only occupy 1/4 -> 1/2 horizontally of the browser window, sites that would be heck to maintain after about 25 pages, sites that blow if you increase the font size, sites that are almost illegible. I admit my fingers just ache every time I look at the examples to take the designs and turn them into a table. The day that someone can show me how to take a site like ConstructionLifters.com and not use a single table, that's the day I'll sign onto using CSS for everything. Christie Mason -----Original Message----- From: thelist-bounces at lists.evolt.org [mailto:thelist-bounces at lists.evolt.org]On Behalf Of Christian Heilmann Sent: Tuesday, June 20, 2006 6:38 AM To: thelist at lists.evolt.org Subject: Re: [thelist] arguments pro css & xhtml / con tables That is a skill level / getting time to research issue. As a generalization I cannot subscribe to this. I worked for an agency in the last five years delivering things like visitbritain.com or mcdonalds.co.uk (html version) and didn't use any tables. Using what you have known for years (tables) is a quick way out and you don't have to think about it. On the other hand you shouldn't complain about getting bad design assignments if you don't push back. You will be responsible for fixing what is on the screen, and if there are any issues because of table layouts it will be put on the table as your decision.If you as the developer don't evolve nobody will as all the PMs see is you working to time and budget. As your line manager I'd ask you in appraisals where your motivation lies and ask for more initiative if you want to become more than a code monkey. -- Chris Heilmann Blog: http://www.wait-till-i.com Writing: http://icant.co.uk/ Binaries: http://www.onlinetools.org/ -- * * Please support the community that supports you. * * http://evolt.org/help_support_evolt/ For unsubscribe and other options, including the Tip Harvester and archives of thelist go to: http://lists.evolt.org Workers of the Web, evolt !