1 Topic by Louis (edited by CSpotkill 2004-01-12 14:13)

  • Louis
  • Senior Member
  • Offline
  • From: Toronto, Canada
  • Registered: 2003-12-24
  • Posts: 197

Topic: PunBB without <table>'s

Hello to anyone who's considering PunBB for their forums! It's very fast and easy to mod ;) As I'm interested in web standards and would love to see my favourite open source forum software completely redesigned with standards, I started converting it to CSS. Ps21 took my initiative and decided to remove some of the unnecessary tables and HTML, while leaving a basic, barebones table for layout. Altogether, we're working on new ideas to make PunBB better. Download PunBB if you haven't already, or try some forum mods ;)


CSpotkill.

Below is the continuation of a discussion on web standards and my PunBB CSS redesign (still in progress) that started on a thread about PunBB 1.1's new features.

Kennel wrote:

PunBB 1.2 will output valid XHTML 1.0 Transitional.

Will you keep using tables for layout purposes?

Also, I've just finished adding [flash] and [ascii] tags to my forum. For the flash tag, width and height are required, but they can be in any order. ASCII will wrap a div with a style attribute around the ascii art to change the font to Courier New, or another monospaced font. Below is a sample taken from a test signature:

[flash width=300 height=120]http://www.macromedia.com/shockwave/download/triggerpages_mmcom/flash.swf[/flash]
[flash height=120 width=300]http://www.macromedia.com/shockwave/download/triggerpages_mmcom/flash.swf[/flash]
[ascii] _____ __             _
|_   _/  \__ __ _____| |_  _
  | || () \ V  V / -_) | || |
  |_| \__/ \_/\_/\___|_|\_, |
                        |__/[/ascii]

I also added an option in profile for show_flash and an entry in the users table for show_flash ? both similar to show_img. After a bit more testing, it might make a nice mod =D

I used the Flash Satay method mentioned above, however in Internet Explorer it incorrectly waits to download the full flash file before starting playback, so I may want to modify it further and add an admin option to choose between the standards compliant mode for smaller flash files or the bloated object/embed combo that flash will export by default.

So far, PunBB has been a joy for modding, everything is logical and the naming is consistent.
I think I've fallen in love with a PHP script ;)


Spot.

  • From: 127.0.0.1
  • Registered: 2001-11-02
  • Posts: 9,167

Re: PunBB without <table>'s

Nice! And yeah, we would love a mod :)

Edit: Forgot to answer the question. No, I will probably stick to using tables for now. At least for 1.2.

"Programming is like sex: one mistake and you have to support it for the rest of your life."

Rickard's Website

3 Reply by Louis

  • Louis
  • Senior Member
  • Offline
  • From: Toronto, Canada
  • Registered: 2003-12-24
  • Posts: 197

Re: PunBB without <table>'s

Kennel wrote:

Nice! And yeah, we would love a mod smile

Okay, I'll fix it up as a mod wink

And validation is harder than you'd think ... Especially for XHTML. I was thinking of modding PunBB 1.1 myself to conform with XHTML 1.0 and have most of XHTML 1.1 covered too, outside of the correct XHTML mime-type ? due to limitations with IE, you can't set the mime type to application/xhtml+xml and only with some versions of XHTML 1.0 can you send XHTML as text/html, see XHTML Media Types (W3C Note 1 August 2002) for details.

However it's occurred to me since that you would have to parse all user input and ensure the correct encoding is used (In this example, you'd either have to change the encoding to unicode or change my post, to validate.)

Kennel wrote:

Edit: Forgot to answer the question. No, I will probably stick to using tables for now. At least for 1.2.

Yet another problem: To use XHTML you should use tables solely for tabular data, like spreadsheets and never for layout/presentational purposes, since that's what CSS is there for. Seriously, is there any reason not to switch from tables to CSS? Maybe I'll try just giving the plain-vanilla PunBB 1.1 a complete CSS makeover, I was planning to anyway ...

4 Reply by eelco

  • eelco
  • Junior Member
  • Offline
  • Registered: 2004-01-05
  • Posts: 2

Re: PunBB without <table>'s

I was thinking of modding PunBB 1.1 myself to conform with XHTML 1.0

I already did that wink I have a patch if you want it.

5 Reply by Louis (edited by CSpotkill 2004-01-07 19:56)

  • Louis
  • Senior Member
  • Offline
  • From: Toronto, Canada
  • Registered: 2003-12-24
  • Posts: 197

Re: PunBB without <table>'s

eelco wrote:
CSpotkill wrote:

I was thinking of modding PunBB 1.1 myself to conform with XHTML 1.0

I already did that ;) I have a patch if you want it.

Oooh. Yeah I want it! I just opened the homepage up in Dreamweaver and it converted the source code to XHTML to prepare for a CSS-based layout, but of course there are a few problems with the PHP code. Did you mod the following?


   1. Posts don't use Paragraph tags, they currently (improperly) use line breaks. (br tags)

   2. Would you use [i.] and [b.] tags to create semantically correct <em> and <strong> HTML
   tags? And add [em] and [strong] for politically-correct BBcode? ;)

   3. Personally, I'd want to complete the XHTML transition by using CSS instead of tables.

   4. All the small semantic things, like having true lists, instead of using space characters
   and typing in numbers, like I have to do now ... Check Tantek Çelik's blog for more.


If your patch fixes all this I'd be amazed ... but even if it doesn't, send it to me anyway, I'm still interested. ;) (Edit: Never mind. Thanks Kennel.)

6 Reply by Paul

  • Paul
  • Senior Member
  • Offline
  • From: Wales, UK.
  • Registered: 2003-08-13
  • Posts: 3,089

Re: PunBB without <table>'s

I don't understand the reference to tables. Tables are perfectly valid XHTML and comply with all the standards provided they are used in a semantically correct way i.e. for outputting tabular data rather than as a layout framework. There is also no conflict between using tables and CSS. PunBB uses CSS to set the properties for tables. In fact, if you replaced all the tables with divs this would not be correct as much of the output is tabular data from a database and divs are not the sematically correct markup for such output, tables are.

7 Reply by Louis (edited by CSpotkill 2004-01-07 19:57)

  • Louis
  • Senior Member
  • Offline
  • From: Toronto, Canada
  • Registered: 2003-12-24
  • Posts: 197

Re: PunBB without <table>'s

ps21 wrote:

... divs are not the sematically correct markup for [tabular data from a database], tables are.

Yes, I know. Divs aren't semantically correct for most data ? they're just for presentation, as page dividers. Notice how I never mentioned divs in my post? You don't need div tags to use CSS with any modern browser. wink

ps21 wrote:

Tables are perfectly valid XHTML and comply with all the standards provided they are used in a semantically correct way i.e. for outputting tabular data rather than as a layout framework.

Correct.

ps21 wrote:

There is also no conflict between using tables and CSS. PunBB uses CSS to set the properties for tables.

Again Correct.

ps21 wrote:

In fact, if you replaced all the tables with divs this would not be correct as much of the output is tabular data from a database.

Close ? if it was all tabular data from a database, then you'd be right. However what I am typing now is not tabular at all. It's paragraphs of text. Inside a table. Inside yet another table. Inside yet another table. Inside yet another table. (I'm not joking, I just checked ? every post has it's own table, along with a few extra tables wrapping them) With spacing tables around them. This is an improper use of tables, since as you mentioned above, they should only be used "... in a semantically correct way i.e. for outputting tabular data rather than as a layout framework."

Now do you understand the reference to tables? (Don't take it personally, as it's just a clarification ... )



Spot.


PS. Oh and did I mention switching from tables to CSS can save bandwidth and make the fastest PHP Bulletin Board even faster?

For example, ESPN switched from older tables-based layout to new, CSS-based positioning and immediately 50KB were saved on each page. With around 40,000,000 page views per day day, the projected bandwidth savings were 2 terabytes/day, or 61 terabytes/month or an amazing 730 terabytes/year! Not to mention how much easier it would be to develop for and integrate with PunBB.

Plus right now, small competitors offer standards compliance. While I cannot verify the claims, it would make sense to switch PunBB from tables-based to CSS-based layout, don't you agree?

8 Reply by Auron

  • From: England
  • Registered: 2004-01-07
  • Posts: 10

Re: PunBB without <table>'s

If they should only be used for data then how should the layout of the tables containing are posts be positioned?

Using CSS is an option but most browsers are still useless at it. Tables are basic layout formatting tools. CSS is not supported enough by browsers or they have different ways of doing the same thing which means you have to have a lot of code for each browser and browser type. As tables are standard in all browsers and use the same tags and attributes/values (most of the time) they are an ideal choice.

9 Reply by Louis (edited by CSpotkill 2004-01-07 16:19)

  • Louis
  • Senior Member
  • Offline
  • From: Toronto, Canada
  • Registered: 2003-12-24
  • Posts: 197

Re: PunBB without <table>'s

Auron wrote:

Using CSS is an option but most browsers are still useless at it. Tables are basic layout formatting tools. CSS is not supported enough by browsers or they have different ways of doing the same thing which means you have to have a lot of code for each browser and browser type. As tables are standard in all browsers and use the same tags and attributes/values (most of the time) they are an ideal choice.

Ahh, you don't know CSS yet, do you? It's quite simple. CSS is actually right now supported by the majority of internet users, everyone from IE 5 upwards has excellent CSS support (at least as much CSS-P as we need.) And the idea of CSS is that they ARE standard. If I write a page in IE, it will work in Mozilla Firebird, no problem. (With a few IE workarounds, that is. But there are ways of avoiding those too.)

You may have heard of the Web Standards Project's Browser Upgrade Campaign, here's a quote from their current page:

So it's over, huh?

The complexion the web of has changed ? for the better. The percentage of standards supporting browsers in use has increased tremendously. The percentage of non-standards supporting browsers is low and doing nothing but decreasing. Those older browsers still in use are largely found in institutions where the choice of which browser to use is out of the control of the person using the computer. There are very few reasons to continue with the same course of action.

Did the BUC meet its goals?

It should be clear by the tone of this page so far that the campaign was a success. The techniques promoted for the campaign were deployed on thousands of web sites reaching hundreds of thousands of surfers.

Additionally, while not all site developers have made the transition to standards based web sites, those who want to can do so with much less fear then they may have had when this campaign was launched.

10 Reply by Auron (edited by Auron 2004-01-07 15:48)

  • From: England
  • Registered: 2004-01-07
  • Posts: 10

Re: PunBB without <table>'s

I know a lot of CSS actually smile

But I don't see the point. It may be supported by all browsers (Not fully by all means!). But how would you replace these tables?

With div's? Or are you one of those ppl who use absolute positioning? If so you need help! I have no problems with CSS it just means that there is more to go wrong. It also means editing two files to make one page look right. You should save this page as is and try and make it using CSS with div/span tags (NO Tables!).

Auron

11 Reply by Louis (edited by CSpotkill 2004-01-07 16:14)

  • Louis
  • Senior Member
  • Offline
  • From: Toronto, Canada
  • Registered: 2003-12-24
  • Posts: 197

Re: PunBB without <table>'s

Auron wrote:

... how would you replace these tables?

With div's? Or are you one of those ppl who use absolute positioning? If so you need help! I have no problems with CSS it just means that there is more to go wrong. It also means editing two files to make one page look right. You should save this page as is and try and make it using CSS with div/span tags (NO Tables!).

I wouldn't use absolute positioning, I'd probably use some floats with as little markup as I can get away with. I'll keep it clear and fast loading while keeping the design the same.

As it is, most of the default layout already looks like a CSS-based layout. Just use relative positioning and keep the 100% widths ... the difference is that instead of tables, you'd use lists, headers and paragraph tags.

As for editing two files, that's what you're doing NOW! With a CSS-based layout, doing layout tweaks requires JUST ONE file, a new CSS file. Here's an example of changing layouts while keeping the exact same HTML file.

There's more to go wrong with a tables-based layout than a CSS-based one. If we use the ESPN statistics, there's over 50KB more to go wrong, on each page ;)

12 Reply by Auron

  • From: England
  • Registered: 2004-01-07
  • Posts: 10

Re: PunBB without <table>'s

I personally love CSS but how do you do repeated bit like say listing topics with all the CSS in a .css file while your PHP is in a .php file? You need the HTML to format it there and then. CSS is nice but there is not really enough styles/whatever to make layouts that work in all browsers and are easy to maintain.

CSS can get too complicated with id's and classes. With tables, all you do is whach a couple in and your done no messing around trying to get the right class with the right id.

When i said 2 files you have to switch between viewing the css file and then look at the file/s that link to it to see the the effect of the changes just made. Whereas with tables in most wysiwyg editors you can just draw them in, in a few seconds rather than a few minutes.

Auron

13 Reply by Louis (edited by CSpotkill 2004-01-07 16:43)

  • Louis
  • Senior Member
  • Offline
  • From: Toronto, Canada
  • Registered: 2003-12-24
  • Posts: 197

Re: PunBB without <table>'s

Auron wrote:

I personally love CSS but how do you do repeated bit like say listing topics with all the CSS in a .css file while your PHP is in a .php file? You need the HTML to format it there and then.

How would you do it with tables? It's worse. You'd have to actually edit the PHP file with tables. With CSS, you could simply edit a CSS file and bam, new look. Did you really visit CSS Zen Garden (the link above) and see how they took ONE page and completely transformed it? CSS would eliminate the need to edit index.php directly, except for extreme mods.

As for the repeating, why not use lists?

Auron wrote:

CSS is nice but there is not really enough styles/whatever to make layouts that work in all browsers and are easy to maintain. CSS can get too complicated with id's and classes. With tables, all you do is whach a couple in and your done no messing around trying to get the right class with the right id.

You "love CSS" ? but find it hard to write and therefore prefer tables? Read a few Eric Meyer books, or Jeffrey Zeldman's Designing With Web Standards, then say with a straight face that it's hard to design a layout that works in all browsers with CSS. CSS was made for compatibilty!

Auron wrote:

When i said 2 files you have to switch between viewing the css file and then look at the file/s that link to it to see the the effect of the changes just made. Whereas with tables in most wysiwyg editors you can just draw them in, in a few seconds rather than a few minutes.

Haven't we already said that you CAN'T edit the HTML directly, since it's in PHP files? Therefore the CSS makes it easier to edit. With good editors, like Macromedia Dreamweaver MX 2004 or Adobe GoLive CS, or even Microsoft FrontPage 2003, CSS is EASY and WYSIWYG!


Spot.

  • From: 127.0.0.1
  • Registered: 2001-11-02
  • Posts: 9,167

Re: PunBB without <table>'s

CSpotkill:

I am quite aware of the fact that tables are meant to be used for tabular data. One of the reasons I am using tables instead of a div/css based layout is that there are still numerous cross browser display issues. Ask the folks over at vBulletin. They actually changed back to a table based layout for parts of their forum in the last release candidate because of the amount of display issues users were encountering. Also, if changing to a div/css based design forces PunBB to do browser specific output (and CSS hacks), I am very sceptical. Don't misunderstand me. I'm all for Internet standards and I'm positive towards the eradication of table based layouts in favor of new and better methods. However, as it is now, the change comes at a price that is simply too high.

Take a look at W3C's own front page. It looks different in the very latest versions of IE, Mozilla and Opera. I think that says something about how far we still have to go before we can drop tables for design/positioning.

Also, I'm a programmer. I hate having to deal with presentation issues. If someone could download this page (and maybe a few other pages in the forum) and convert it into a non-table based layout that looks identical (or almost identical) to the current look (and works in IE/Moz/Opera without a hitch), I will be hugely impressed. Is anyone up for the challenge?

CSpotkill wrote:

   1. Posts don't use Paragraph tags, they currently (improperly) use line breaks. (br tags)

True. However, realizing that in code isn't just replacing a <br /> with a <p> and a </p>.

CSpotkill wrote:

   2. Would you use [i.] and [b.] tags to create semantically correct <em> and <strong> HTML
   tags? And add [em] and [strong] for politically-correct BBcode? ;)

Yes, I will change to <em> and <strong>. However, I'm not sure I want to duplicate the behavior of two BBCode tags just to please the fanatics :)

CSpotkill wrote:

   3. Personally, I'd want to complete the XHTML transition by using CSS instead of tables.

Then we would use Strict and not Transitional. We are currently in the phase of transitioning into XML based output. I believe that's why we use the transitional DTD.

CSpotkill wrote:

   4. All the small semantic things, like having true lists, instead of using space characters
   and typing in numbers, like I have to do now ...

Once again, this is something that I have chosen not to implement because of the PunBB philosophy. I've noticed that forum users extremely seldom use the [list] tag that is provided in other forums. Based on that, I decided to not include it. Not having it also speeds up the forum because fewer regular expressions have to be evaluated/executed.

eelco's patch for XHTML 1.0 conformance in PunBB 1.1 can be found here: http://punbb.org/contrib/patches/

"Programming is like sex: one mistake and you have to support it for the rest of your life."

Rickard's Website

  • From: 127.0.0.1
  • Registered: 2001-11-02
  • Posts: 9,167

Re: PunBB without <table>'s

CSpotkill wrote:

Plus right now, small competitors offer standards compliance. While I cannot verify the claims, it would make sense to switch PunBB from tables-based to CSS-based layout, don't you agree?

Standard compliant? Have you even looked at the source?

http://www.minibb.net/forums/

"Programming is like sex: one mistake and you have to support it for the rest of your life."

Rickard's Website

16 Reply by Louis (edited by CSpotkill 2004-01-07 17:08)

  • Louis
  • Senior Member
  • Offline
  • From: Toronto, Canada
  • Registered: 2003-12-24
  • Posts: 197

Re: PunBB without <table>'s

Kennel wrote:

... there are still numerous cross browser display issues. Ask the folks over at vBulletin. They actually changed back to a table based layout for parts of their forum in the last release candidate because of the amount of display issues users were encountering. Also, if changing to a div/css based design forces PunBB to do browser specific output (and CSS hacks), I am very sceptical. ...

Take a look at W3C's own front page. It looks different in the very latest versions of IE, Mozilla and Opera. I think that says something about how far we still have to go before we can drop tables for design/positioning.

Also, I'm a programmer. I hate having to deal with presentation issues. If someone could download this page (and maybe a few other pages in the forum) and convert it into a non-table based layout that looks identical (or almost identical) to the current look (and works in IE/Moz/Opera without a hitch), I will be hugely impressed. Is anyone up for the challenge?

First, the cross-browser issues are difficult, I agree. I just re-read your post and noticed the "if" in "If changing ... forces PunBB to do browser specific output (and CSS hacks), I am very sceptical." I agree. However, it wouldn't, if done properly.

Besides, just because the programmers at vBulletin couldn't get CSS right, doesn't mean you shouldn't use it. Look at Wired.com, ESPN.com, even Sprint uses CSS now. Seriously, CSS is exploding. Everyone's using it. Don't give up because some past attempts failed.

As I'd mentioned above in other posts, I'm aiming for clarity over design. If I must make it look exactly as it is now, with the exact same padding and borders, it may need this IE-specific hack, but only to IE version 5.5. Since version 6, in strict mode, IE is wonderful. And if we don't have to match it down to the pixel in every browser,  we wouldn't need any hack.

Yes, I'm up for that challenge. It would be a piece of cake ;)

Kennel wrote:
CSpotkill wrote:

   1. Posts don't use Paragraph tags, they currently (improperly) use line breaks. (br tags)

True. However, realizing that in code isn't just replacing a <br /> with a <p> and a </p>.

I understood that. I was in fact commenting on what would have to be done for true compliance. It would include a much larger re-write than just a 0.1 increment would provide. Maybe a 0.2 or 0.3 ;)


Kennel wrote:
CSpotkill wrote:

   3. Personally, I'd want to complete the XHTML transition by using CSS instead of tables.

Then we would use Strict and not Transitional. We are currently in the phase of transitioning into XML based output. I believe that's why we use the transitional DTD.

Actually, you don't want to use XHTML 1.0 Strict (and that wasn't what I was talking about). For one, you won't be able to use target="_blank" and frankly, I like having the links open in new windows, it saves me from pushing shift ;)

Kennel wrote:
CSpotkill wrote:

   4. All the small semantic things, like having true lists, instead of using space characters
   and typing in numbers, like I have to do now ...

Once again, this is something that I have chosen not to implement because of the PunBB philosophy. I've noticed that forum users extremely seldom use the [list] tag that is provided in other forums. Based on that, I decided to not include it. Not having it also speeds up the forum because fewer regular expressions have to be evaluated/executed.

How about adding lists as an extra that you can enable in the admin panel, then? Or I'll just mod it in, manually, I guess ...

Kennel wrote:
CSpotkill wrote:

Plus right now, small competitors offer standards compliance. While I cannot verify the claims, it would make sense to switch PunBB from tables-based to CSS-based layout, don't you agree?

Standard compliant? Have you even looked at the source?

http://www.minibb.net/forums/

Nope, as I'd mentioned ... I'd read it on another webpage, one of those PHP-script directories. I guess they meant HTML 4.01 as well.

  • From: 127.0.0.1
  • Registered: 2001-11-02
  • Posts: 9,167

Re: PunBB without <table>'s

CSpotkill wrote:

Besides, just because the programmers at vBulletin couldn't get CSS right, doesn't mean you shouldn't use it. Look at Wired.com, ESPN.com, even Sprint uses CSS now. Seriously, CSS is exploding. Everyone's using it. Don't give up because some past attempts failed.

A valid point.

CSpotkill wrote:

As I'd mentioned above in other posts, I'm aiming for clarity over design. If I must make it look exactly as it is now, with the exact same padding and borders, it may need this IE-specific hack, but only to IE version 5.5. Since version 6, in strict mode, IE is wonderful. And if we don't have to match it down to the pixel in every browser,  we wouldn't need any hack.

I guess we could live with that. IE 5.5 is quite a rare browser anyway.

CSpotkill wrote:

Yes, I'm up for that challenge. It would be a piece of cake ;)

This should be interesting :)

CSpotkill wrote:

Actually, you don't want to use XHTML 1.0 Strict (and that wasn't what I was talking about). For one, you won't be able to use target="_blank" and frankly, I like having the links open in new windows, it saves me from pushing shift ;)

I've often wondered. Why the hell did they remove the target attribute and force people to use JavaScript? JS is TEH DEVIL!

CSpotkill wrote:

How about adding lists as an extra that you can enable in the admin panel, then? Or I'll just mod it in, manually, I guess ...

I'll consider it :)

"Programming is like sex: one mistake and you have to support it for the rest of your life."

Rickard's Website

18 Reply by Louis (edited by CSpotkill 2004-01-12 14:06)

  • Louis
  • Senior Member
  • Offline
  • From: Toronto, Canada
  • Registered: 2003-12-24
  • Posts: 197

Re: PunBB without <table>'s

Kennel wrote:
CSpotkill wrote:

Yes, I'm up for that challenge. It would be a piece of cake ;)

This should be interesting :)

I'm working on it right now ... stripping the tables from it was the easy part (Thanks dreamweaver!) Now I'm just trying to add semantic tags and tweak the layout ... I'll post something before I go to bed ...

Edit: Here's the beginning ... More to come ;) Here's the CSS file.
The only thing I don't like about what I've done is using the | character, as you've done. I was hoping to use a border instead, but couldn't do that without using padding (which would require the box model hack for IE 5/5.5)

The box model hack, by the way, simply expliots a rendering bug in IE 5 and 5.5, it's been fixed in 6 and it's only for Windows versions of IE. So it's perfectly safe to use, but I'll design without it for now and add it later if there's no other way to code it.


CSpotkill

PS. Just a clarification on your above post on IE 5.5 being rare, what I'd meant was that using the box model hack, I could help control the layout for Internet Explorer versions 5 and 5.5 ? and excluding version 6. But it won't matter much, so far I've managed to design the site without any hack.

19 Reply by Auron

  • From: England
  • Registered: 2004-01-07
  • Posts: 10

Re: PunBB without <table>'s

PunBB already uses CSS for what its for which is formatting (which does mean layout and style!). Anyway I personally think adding a doctype to make a page work is stupid because that doctypye could activate a different set of standards in a different browser and block tags that are necessary for it.

20 Reply by Auron

  • From: England
  • Registered: 2004-01-07
  • Posts: 10

Re: PunBB without <table>'s

Does it all really matter???

About 80% of web designers use tables for layout and CSS for adding all the styling and minor page formatting.

21 Reply by Auron (edited by Auron 2004-01-07 19:15)

  • From: England
  • Registered: 2004-01-07
  • Posts: 10

Re: PunBB without <table>'s

Anyway i think you should keep it how it is Kennel, okay, maybe make it all XML/XHTML code but forget the CSS if Spot wants it to be all done in CSS then knock yourself out. I prefer desiging stuff with tables.

If CSS was meant to replace HTML which is what you make it sound like how come all the major browsers haven't noticed this?!?

The major issue is making things XML/XHTML compatible since it will replace HTML one of these days.

22 Reply by Louis (edited by CSpotkill 2004-01-07 19:43)

  • Louis
  • Senior Member
  • Offline
  • From: Toronto, Canada
  • Registered: 2003-12-24
  • Posts: 197

Re: PunBB without <table>'s

Auron ... You haven't read anything I've posted, have you? Even kennel himself has said that PunBB does NOT use CSS for layout, it uses tables.

Adding a doctype makes many browsers work in "strict mode" ? in fact, with the current page, Internet Explorer and others are rendering this page with "quirks mode" turned off, since it has a URI in the doctype. As for blocking tags, I've no idea what you're talking about.

Does it matter? Yes. Tell me the source of that 80% statistic. You're just writing your opinion, not hard facts.

CSS is NOT meant to replace HTML. CSS is a layout tool and the majority of browsers now support it! The page I just designed works in the dominate Microsoft Internet Explorer browser for versions 5.01, 5.5 SP2, and IE 6, as well as Opera 7 and Mozilla Firebird 0.7+. They've noticed, you haven't.

Besides, even the original HTML spec never meant for tables to be a layout tool ? ever. In fact, the birth of CSS was around 7 years ago, when they realised the web was going to be big and that font tags, border attributes, etc. wouldn't be enough control for designers coming from a print background, where you have, for example type kerning and precise control over the layout. (I won't start in all the details, since I know you won't care ... )


CSpotkill

PS. Kennel, I've another mod/feature idea: The admin ability to "combine" multiple posts from one user (like what Auron did above) either automatically, or similar to how you can move/delete multiple threads now. Being able to move individual posts from one thread to another is great for weeding out off-topic posts.

23 Reply by Chacmool (edited by chacmool 2004-01-07 19:40)

  • From: Gothenburg, Sweden
  • Registered: 2002-07-03
  • Posts: 946

Re: PunBB without <table>'s

Interesting discussion... I'm sceptical though, but I think it's just because I've always used tables and never taken the time to look more at "css-tables". I also have the old "If it aint broken, don't fix it"-feeling wink

24 Reply by Louis (edited by CSpotkill 2004-01-07 19:52)

  • Louis
  • Senior Member
  • Offline
  • From: Toronto, Canada
  • Registered: 2003-12-24
  • Posts: 197

Re: PunBB without <table>'s

chacmool wrote:

Interesting discussion... I'm sceptical though, but I think it's just because I've always used tables and never taken the time to look more at "css-tables". I also have the old "If it aint broken, don't fix it"-feeling wink

Did you see what I did? (look up, 6 posts) It's even more impressive when you view the source. wink (Compare it with the old source ? What if I did that for the entire forum!)

Try reading a bit of What are Web Standards and Why Should I Use Them? or the WaSP's CSS Resources page. Visit CSS Zen Garden to view the power of CSS in action.

CSS is much better than tables and so much easier once you've practiced with it for a few websites. Don't be afraid to try it wink


CSpotkill

25 Reply by Chacmool (edited by chacmool 2004-01-07 20:13)

  • From: Gothenburg, Sweden
  • Registered: 2002-07-03
  • Posts: 946

Re: PunBB without <table>'s

Yeah, I looked at it, and I'll read the page later today smile

It just feels like the discussion is about not using tables as a layout tool just because it wasn't ment that way. Though, I also noticed the size-difference between the two pages, so I'm not completely against it smile

I'll be back when I've read som more big_smile

Edit: The 'standard'-part I do agree on, hate it when I'm forced to switch browser from opera to IE just beqause the programmers fucked up.