|
I don't believe any of this was meant as a flame to M$ developers or people who use tables.
It's easy to get self righteous and go with MS vs. non-MS and tables vs.CSS-P
The real issue is 'It Just Works' (TM) and 'It goes the extra mile'.
Tables work... and they do the job... and they sure are easier to understand and work with than CSS-P. But eventually... tables will fall behind.
And saying MS 'isn't going anywhere' might be true (at least in the long run... you know they said the same thing about IBM a few years back, remember?) but limiting yourself to any one particulair piece of software or way of thinking is.... well... limiting.
Truth is, tables are on their way out, one way or another, as long as it takes. They may do the job right now, but CSS is already offering points over tables and with newer versions it will leave table-driven designs in the dust. So you might as well catch the train as it's leaving the station, because it's a helluva lot harder when you have to play catch-up.
Just like MS developers using their kewl MS specific stuff to code fast and dirty. I mean, someone who has been in the industry for 7+ years should know that there are people out there who don't care for standards and guidelines and think varialbe names like 'a1' and 'b2' are 'good enough'. But when you have longer projects, projects that you have to maintain for an extended period of time, you learn the fallacy of this.
So saying to use CSS-P instead of tables is like saying to use OOP and document your code. It may make things harder in the beginning and take longer, but eventually it will pay off big time.
__________________
The most likely way for the world to be destroyed, most experts agree, is by accident. That's where we come in; we're computer professionals. We cause accidents.
- Nathaniel Borenstein
|