I suppose you're going to say tables are the way to go? Tables are bad practice. They render differently in IE and FF and Opera. They are TERRIBLE with screen readers, which is a huge part of the company(It being a Blind Non Profit). And they are slower to load than CSS pages.

I might try that. I'll see how it will work. A reason I don't want that is because then I need to split up the menus.

Actually... I could just do two. Split it in half and have the background of the left portion be the gradient image set to the left and the right div set to the right.

 

:hsdunno: Its not turning out properly. I might need to scrap my idea.
With divs, each new one is a new line. I'm not sure how to do it without having it jump to a new line.

 

gimme a sec. i'll give you an example.

 

http://accessat.c-net.us/test/template-3col.html

there ya go. I do it slightly different, but this example is OK. The only example I have right now is a page w/ 2 colunms. Basically, use float and the clear property, wrappers, and the clear property at the bottom.

 

actually isnt IE the only company that has different rendering practices then opera, safari, and firefox? safari and firefox are spot on.

div's are the way to go, but w3 is stupid.

first frames were good they say. but then high school kids learned how to do it, so they move to tables. then high school kids learned how to program it. so now its div tags.

i think its a conspiracy by the W3 to try to keep jobs out of high schoolers. cause they realize html is so easy they are trying to complicate it beyond what it needs to be. xml i at. except for rss.

also with div tags you need to use positioning system, but i ie gave that stuff up after ie4. so i am confused a bit. one of the products we offer where i work copies website templates of sites. ever since this div thing, the templates have been a pain in the ass to copy and often dont turn out right.

 

i don't think that's what he's saying, but i've also noticed this "tables bad, divs good" nonsense for a while now.

in real world scenarios, it ends up being a mix. there is no way you can convince me that it's possible to do everything in divs without turning your html into an unreadable, complicated mess. either that, or your pages are mindlessly simple.

to rule out an entire set of objects because of some nonsense mantra is ludicrous.

i do what i can to keep to divs, but once it's clear that i have a fight on my hands, i start looking at tables. i'd rather focus my energy on the more important code.

p.s. and divs often don't behave the same across different browsers either! :shhh:

 

Yeah, CSS has 3 ways to do stuff sometimes....finding the one that works universally for a specific property can be a PITA

 

reno feels what i am saying!!!

 

once someone starts mouthing off about standards, or think it's possible to adhere entirely to the w3c, i immediately know they either have little experience, or haven't been challenged nearly enough.

 

Thats pretty much how I have mine set up.
Let me pack everything together and attach it to show you guys.

Basically. Opera and firefox(Not sure about safari) are pretty much the same. I think I experienced a little trouble between the two on my last site.Once I have it working correctly I need to figure out how I can make a template out of it. Basically link the files before and after the main content so the computer illiterate people at my work can update it easily.

Its best to stick as close as you can to divs. I was just reading some stuff about tables and divs. They said to try to keep tables for data and thats it.

I'm not looking forward to any cross browser issues. I worked on a small 2 pixel gap with the last one for a few weeks.

I admit I don't have much experience. This will be my first site using mostly CSS. I just read up and do research a lot before I start working on it and try to follow the general practices of the community.