-
200810 Dec
Posted in CSS3 Previews, Interviews
Six Revisions put six questions to the estimable Eric Meyer on the subject of CSS3, and we get some nice link love.
Also (and I’m slightly late with this one) John Resig, creator of the jQuery library, runs an approving eye over the Advanced Layout Module. Webmonkey provide further context. We looked at the module back in 2006 (part one, part two), and my tongue-in-cheek prediction of a ten year wait to use it is now down to only eight years…
You can skip to the end and leave a response.
-
Comments
-
01.
John Resig is not a designer, so I shouldn’t be surprised that he approves of the Advanced Layout module, and yet I am anyway.
Utterly the wrong solution to our layout issues. It does nothing other than bring back table-layout, when that is not what designers need. We need flexibility with layout options that CSS does not cater for, and which no Module addresses:
-
02.
“It does nothing other than bring back table-layout” – the advanced layout module allows for layouts which are much more complex than those which are available with tables. It should allow for same-height blocks, and for you to place elements out of order in the DOM, such as moving the footer below the h2 (examples given in your article).
We’d have to see it in action before its real strengths and weaknesses can be assessed, however.
-
03.
Yes, but the layout that those chunks are being put into is a table layout. It’s a series of boxes in rows and columns. It’s NOT good enough.
-
04.
@Matt, the table layout model isn’t inherently bad–don’t get caught up in all the examples where the classes are called ‘cell’ & whatnot. There’s a lot there that can be used fruitfully, although I fear that ‘Everything You Know About CSS is Wrong” (and all the related promo articles making their way to the net) take it way too far. I wouldn’t base all sorts of elements on it, for example, but for basic things like #sidebar & #content, it wouldn’t be at all inappropriate.
There are some other advanced layout options on the [incredibly distant] horizon, like the grid & template layout modules.
-
05.
Off-topic, but where is the contact form gone?
I want to contact you guys! -
06.
Hi Lrbabe,
Thanks for letting us know – I’ve emailed the webmaster, so it should be up fairly soon. Or if it’s urgent, you can send it to me at [email protected] and I can forward it on to the relevant people.
-
07.
I don’t think it’s such a great idea to post your e-mail address publicly like that, unless you like spam. :p
-
08.
Correct me if I’m wrong but I believe one big downfall of the css table-layout is in order to have a column on the right, it needs to occur after the left column in the source code, whereas with floats the source order matters a bit less (and with absolute positioning, it doesn’t matter at all)
-
09.
David says:Comment » March 3rd, 2009 at 3:31 pm
@Matt Wilcox:
I don’t understand. What wrong with table layout ?
What do designers need ? Do you know other layout mechanisms that would bring such a flexibility ? -
10.
Nothing wrong with table layout. Table markup for the sake of layout on the other hand, that’s something completely different.
“It’s a series of boxes in rows and columns. It’s NOT good enough.” What’s wrong with positioning layout elements in rows and boxes? It’s been one in traditional prints since… ever. The difference here is that the ‘table’ is defined within the CSS, not in the HTML so you don’t get semantic noise. -
11.
CSS tables are no where near as bloated as HTML TABLE layouts. Somethings will still make sense to be in lists or H# tags. It’s just another tool to get things done.
-
01.
