Arty wrote:Forums or topics can also be considered to be lists. Considering that there is hierarchy, lists make more sense.
Now put that into a table that would make any sense.
I'm not going to defend doing page layout with tables, but do you think that task is hard? Each category is a table (with a THEAD for the category name) and each forum is a row in that table.
Code: Select all
<table>
<thead>
<tr>
<th>Category</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr>
<td>Forum 1</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Forum 2</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
The only
possible difficulty is representing sub-forums, but with appropriate styling of the rows, it could be done.
Arty wrote:Apply some basic styling to it and you'll get your shiny table. Apply more advanced styling to it and you can have new layout that isn't possible with a table. Remove all styling from it and content would make sense.
That's one of the big arguments for non-tabled styling -- you have more flexibility. (The other two are that table-happy layout can be brittle and that the TABLE tag was really intended for presenting tabular data, not for page layout.)
Arty wrote:FeyFre wrote:We already have IE6 problem.
There is no IE6 problem. Please stop living in past. There is a tiny IE7 problem that will be irrelevant by time phpBB 3.1 is released. Then there is a major IE8 problem, but that has nothing to do with tables. Then there is a colossal Microsoft problem, the only company that releases browsers that don't update themselves, forcing designers to support 5-10 years old browsers.
First, what IE 8 problem? (I'm not doubting you; I'm curious.)
Second, it's a bit unfair to say that Microsoft releases browsers that don't update themselves. They take a more holistic approach and update the browser as part of their OS updating facility, not independently. That's similar to how they update Word, Excel and other pieces, too. It's a philosophical difference, but a perfectly valid way of looking at things given that most IE users are Windows users. (I don't know how the Mac version of IE got updated, but that's a dead browser as far as I know.)
To some degree, I wish that Microsoft would provide a framework for third-party software updates, like they do for uninstallation. Instead of each application prompting me to update it when I start that application (or shippping a constantly running update checker), if Microsoft provided hooks to check installed programs for updates, maybe Windows Update could handle updating most third-party software. (Google may do something similar with the Android Play software updating facility.)
You can certainly blame MIcrosoft for the speed at which they release major new versions of IE, but attacking their update strategy seems wrong. Even if IE could update itself, that wouldn't matter much if MIcrosoft only provided bug fixes until the next major release.
Finally, I wouldn't say that Firefox updates itself (at least not in the sense that Google Chrome does). Firefox
asks me if I want to update it, but I'm not forced to. I'm glad for that, because one of the extensions that I use (Norton toolbar) wasn't updated for Firefox 12 or 13, so I kept using Firefox 11 until it got updated.
You can say that's Symantec's fault (and it is), but I use the Identity Safe feature of Norton toolbar for most of my Web logins and password management, so I made the decision not to update Firefox until Norton got their extension working. I even wrote them to complain about their slowness -- and a few weeks later, I think, an extension was released for Firefox 14, so I updated. Symantec has been better about updates since then.
Anyway, this is digressing quite a bit from the topic, so I'll stop now.
Steve