Forum Moderators: not2easy
I have a question also, what are reasons to avoid using colspan?
would i be able to create the page using no tables at all
But I recommend that you try CSS and see if it will work for you.
Here are some links on Tables to CSS:
Is using CSS instead of tables really a good idea? [webmasterworld.com]
How do you layout using CSS instead of tables? [webmasterworld.com]
Considering site redesign using CSS instead of tables for layout [webmasterworld.com]
Should I go Tableless with CSS? [webmasterworld.com]
CSS vs Table [webmasterworld.com]
No tables/Just CSS How? [webmasterworld.com]
CSS vs Tables Discussion [webmasterworld.com]
CSS: Is it Prime Time? [webmasterworld.com]
After that you can start your journey into the wonderful world of CSS at the CSS Forum [webmasterworld.com].
Also be sure to check out the CSS Forum Library [webmasterworld.com]
Have fun,
Elijah
If you want to make something look like it has been laid out using tables, the easiest way is to use tables. The point of using CSS for layout is that you can create a fluid page, that adapts to the browser, screen resolution and window size that that are being used in viewing it. If CSS just duplicated the rigidity of tables-for-layout, there would be no point in using it.
If CSS just duplicated the rigidity of tables-for-layout, there would be no point in using it.The ability to have alternate style sheets and the related ability of having multiple pages all styled by a common file would be an advantage. The same document can be styled both ridgedly and fluidly by simply changing the style sheet.
The choice between CSS-colspan (where supported) and XHTML-colspan should be one of presentation vs. symantics. Part of the problem with tables, and the source of much of the layout debate, is that line between presentation and symantics gets very blurry. The fact is, with tables probably more than with almost any other element, the symantics virtually dictate much of the presentation.
I have been using CSS for a while now and studied the technical manual (specifications) over and over. I have created liquid sites, as well as converted sites from tables into css (while maintaining the look). Not all clients want to maintain the look though, which is better.
Yes CSS-P/CSS offers the chance to do different things, but i'm sick of seeing soooooo many clone css sites. No-one is experimenting enough, and people are too scared to used "boxes" anymore incase the "gurus" put them down. Just take a look at the drop shadow fad, everyone appears to be using it - because one person said it's nice.
The whole point of being a website designer is to style information in an easy to read, and easy to access way. So.. be creative everyone. Don't just follow what A-List Apart says, and put a bit of yourself into each site you make.
I stopped listening to the gurus and table designers along time ago, they both represent the extreme of either argument.
Keep in mind that by "stop listening" - I mean I stopped trying to be a clone of them.
lol hmmmm, dunno where all that came from... or if it's even relevant for this thread.
To the person who started the thread: Once you get past the CSS learning curve, you'll be fine. Tables should only be used for tabular layout. Creating practically ANY design is easy with css, once you know how ;)
There is a way to do it in CSS but it's not supported in most browsers.
...which could be because there currently is no way of doing it in CSS. It's suggested to be part of CSS3, but it is nowhere to be found in current recommendations.
After all, a colspan is simply a cell/container stretched across two or more columns.
There may be other reasons, but those are the ones that come instantly to mind. Colspan is an inherant property of table cells in relation to one another, and since CSS can't actually add or remove cells, then a CSS equivalent to colspan would only complicate matters.
