Don_Hoagie - 6:40 pm on Sep 26, 2005 (gmt 0)

I agree with cEM that there is definitely a "tables suck!" mentality among some of us CSS-ers, which leads to people building totally unnecessary layouts where tables would work fine/better.

However I am happy that you just posted this reply Pab, as the issue you pointed out is what led to my rationale behind NOT using tables for image galleries for photographers' websites (Though again, I agree with cEM that depending on content and purpose of any other site, tables could often work wonderfully).

As I said, I've done some photographers' sites... and during the design process, ALL of them admitted that they wanted to constantly update with more photos, but had no specific idea of how many more photos they be adding to the galleries in 6, 12, 18, and 24 months. Hearing this, I decided that creating a monster-sized table and leaving empty cells for later was a fairly moronic approach (perhaps there is a better client-friendly way to do it with tables, but my idea is to always to build a site that the client can update on their own... trying to tell people how to manipulate td's and tr's over the phone is quite fruitless).

By using float properties correctly, or creating a solid list style, you or your HTML-illiterate client can add photos til the cows come home, tacking on only a few html tags every time, rather than a completely new table row, or worse yet, having to rehash the whole table. Doing things with CSS-P solved any potential 3am calls I may have gotten in 2 years when the site owner needs to add 20 photos to a page.