[thelist] pixel perfect requirements and web standards

[Sarah Sweeney]

> Generalizations such as this are really scary.  I've seen many table/image
> based sites that work on more browsers, with more consistent results, than
> pure CSS/tableless designs.  In fact, I can't even begin to tell you how
> many pure CSS sites seem to break, or at least look crappy, when font sizes
> are too big or too small.
> 

I don't think this comparison is fair as I would think that those 
table-based sites that worked so well for you did so because the 
developers worked long and hard to make sure they would, and those 
CSS-based sites that did not work so well "broke" because the developers 
did not spend sufficient time and energy making sure they would work 
properly.

Both table-based and CSS-based sites can work great in various browsers 
if the developers take care to make sure they will. So if you are 
comparing *well-done* table-based vs. *well-done* CSS-based sites, the 
main difference would be in the advantages you get from using CSS, i.e. 
speed, SEO, etc.

-- 
sarah sweeney
family: http://geekjock.ca
wedding: http://wedding.geekjock.ca
blog: http://hardedge.ca
portfolio: http://sarah.designshift.com