[thelist] pixel perfect requirements and web standards

[Joshua Olson]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Sarah Sweeney
> Sent: Monday, June 06, 2005 9:58 AM

> 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...

Speaking from experience, it's not all that hard to make a tabled layout
work on almost all browsers.  Especially when you use a WYSIWYG editor that
chops the images into thousands of little spacers automatically.  :-)

> , 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.

That's the point, basically.  For small projects, it's hardly worth the
effort and fight if the money's simply not there.  :-)
 
> Both table-based and CSS-based sites can work great in 
> various browsers if the developers take care to make sure they 
> will. 

Absolutely.

> 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.

Agreed, 100%.

<><><><><><><><><><>
Joshua L. Olson
WAE Tech Inc.
http://www.waetech.com/
Phone: 706.210.0168 

Monitor bandwidth usage on IIS6 in real-time:
http://www.waetech.com/services/iisbm/