I find it easier exponentially to use div. You're right though, the current web standards are just opinions, http://www.w3.org/html/wg/ you can join. If you do you may argue against the current idea:

Tables should not be used purely as a means to layout document content as this may present problems when rendering to non-visual media. Additionally, when used with graphics, these tables may force users to scroll horizontally to view a table designed on a system with a larger display. To minimize these problems, authors should use style sheets to control layout rather than tables.

That is found out the bottom of the introductions to tables http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/struct/tables.html
I personally agree with the LARGE groups of people that VOTED to have it done this way.

But it just seems to me like when most people on this lovely interweb talk about web coding standards, they are in fact really talking about doing something opposite of Internet Explorer.

Yes and no. Yes, because IE's history has been to be the LEAST standards compliant of all the browsers, so yes, a lot of effort has been expended to make IE work as much like the MORE standards-compliant browsers. If IE were made to adhere to standards from the beginning, instead of doing it's own thing, then it would have/would BE so much easier for everyone. Hopefully that day will come when IE8 comes out -- and IE6 finally dies it's well-deserved death.

without all that hassle of floating and absolute positioning.

Sorry, but this just sounds like someone who is unwilling to take the time to really LEARN CSS and get away from tables for layout. Absolute positioning is a BAD idea for an entire layout, it is best used sparingly and only when it's really needed to achieve a layout. Same goes for floats, it's NOT all THAT hard to work with floats, once you understand HOW they work.

What's wrong with tables for layout ? Here's a resource that can explain it far better than I :http://www.hotdesign.com/seybold/everything.html

Your argument for using tables because it's faster doesn't hold water - I can code a totally table-less layout with CSS a LOT faster than I could ever do a mess of nested tables. Then when it comes to maintenance or re-designs - I can change most of an entire web site by changing ONE file - the CSS file. It's simply not necessary to touch EVERY page to fix something as you would with a tables-based site. Yes, you can style tables with CSS, but what you can do really IS limited.

Much of our world is based on STANDARDS agreed upon by the different industries - Electrical Engineering, Mechanical, Construction - you name it... web technologies are no different, and Web Standards are far more than mere 'opinion'.

Very useful info... every webmaster should go through this thread.. thanks for sharing ...

Originally Posted by LadynRed

Yes and no. Yes, because IE's history has been to be the LEAST standards compliant of all the browsers, so yes, a lot of effort has been expended to make IE work as much like the MORE standards-compliant browsers. If IE were made to adhere to standards from the beginning, instead of doing it's own thing, then it would have/would BE so much easier for everyone. Hopefully that day will come when IE8 comes out -- and IE6 finally dies it's well-deserved death.

Okay.. let it be known, that Im not against tabless stuff.. to each thier own in coding style.. whatever works the BEST for you and your situation. I realized that a lot of you might be doing sites using JUST HTML, and not using a server side template system.. in which case.. of course.. if I have 100 or 200 web pages, all with the same table layout.. that would be a NIGHTMARE.. so I SEE the light and the realm in which that should live.

But let me just point out, and Ive thought this before.. your point about IE 6 and web standards.. or even IE 7. I just think its odd (but by no means unique), and Ill tell you why. Now i have no love for IE6 really, but at the time.. when it was released.. something like 90% or more of internet users were using Internet Explorer.. now I know other browsers have had a good showing here and there, and lately with firefox, its got a REALLY good showing.. but by no means have any browser come close to the overall market penetration IE has had since its 5.5 release.. Granted people will say "thats because they baked it into the OS!! those rat bastards!!" and theyd be right.. but thats doesnt change the fact that the majority of people on the internet have been using Internet Explorer! So maybe not the linux geeks or the hardcore apple heads or the coders out there.. those are people that seek things that arent the "man" anyway.. Im talking about the average user of the Internet.. my Mom, my kids, my customers..

So with that being said.. here comes the "standards" group and decides on an updated model that IE 6.0 doesnt conform to.

Wait a second.. is that right? How is something thar represents less than 10% (more now but still) of the total internet community in ANY WAY SHAPE OR FORM represent a "standard"? Truth is it doesnt... Granted MS is part of the W3c, but that whole organization has gone out of their way to produce something that deviated from a PRODUCT that was the real standard of the net.. IE.

So flame away.. but thats the truth of the mater.. I like CSS, its awesome.. Ive learned a bunch from reading yalls topics.. even fixed my sticky footer problem I was having thanx to some specific guidance on this board... but just had to get it out there.. the Standards, have rarely matched the true browser standard.

MS has ALWAYS tried to force things to be THEIR way, and the W3C was around before IE became a shadow of what it is today. They were a member then too, and they blatantly refused to co-operate and tried mightily to have their own way.

I whole-heartedly disagree that anything MS produces has to be the defacto 'standard' just because it's installed on a PC.

nice info

thanks