[thelist] How important is height when using tables?

[Karl Jacobs]

>
>
>Also, certain people seem content to ignore the issue of graceful
>degredation. So, let's say I've done my cutting-edge (edge ain't that sharp
>anymore, people...) CSS layout, but the poor, unfortunate, downtrodden
>masses that simply *groan* CAN'T be bothered to upgrade their browser
>doesn't support my styles.


Especially since those downtrodden masses are each represented by 
about .25 percent of your audience, and all require specific coding 
to get sites to work right.


>OH NO GUESS WHAT: I'm a smart lil' coder, so my site degrades without
>affecting the structure of the information. Headings are still headings,
>lists are lists, etc. Nothing is lost except frills and presentation which
>ultimately do not matter anyway.
>
>So, what leg do the stubborn old table-based coders have to stand on again?
>Ignoring the non-issue points about bandwidth etc., most of which actually
>FURTHER support moving ahead with modern methods, what exactly do the
>old-school have to say?


Actually, I still sometimes use a table for basic page structure, to 
get around all the float bugs,  but nested tables are gone in my 
layouts.

Floating is still my one gripe with CSS.  It still has way too many 
bugs. A simple table is sometimes far better.


>I don't understand. If done right, modern techniques will cause you at WORST
>to lose the visual presentation in old browsers. Quirks in IE5 maybe. That's
>it! Information intact! Life is good! EVOLUTION IS AT WORK.


Yep.  Use CSS. learn to love it.


>What's the problem?? :)
>


Trying to update legacy sites.....   :-P