Any real difference between CSS'd web pages and table based ones?

[Jenery-A]

Hi to all!  Just signed-up to this good looking forum.  So, having recently developed various websites using a responsive web editor, my conclusion is that CSS'd web pages aren't that much different from older table based ones, at least where devices with larger displays are concerned, e.g desktops/towers, laptops, larger tablet systems.

[McGaskil]

Don't think table based web pages would be responsive which is a must-have now.

McGaskil

[Joanofark]

The topic starter did qualify with 'at least where devices with larger displays are concerned, e.g ...'  Depending on the CSS formatting, I tend to agree that there might not be much difference visually between how a table based page looks and how a CSSd one does.

[a.brin]

Where larger screens or displays are concerned it really makes little difference if web pages are responsive or not, so leaving that factor aside I also tend to agree with the topic starter.  A css file or inline style can dictate say a three column x five row page, and you can achieve the same thing with a table.

[McGaskil]

I think you can achieve more formatting options with css, unless you have nested tables or something like you could have with table bsed pages.


McGaskil

[Jenery-A]

McGaskil wrote

I think you can achieve more formatting options with css, unless you have nested tables or something like you could have with table bsed pages.


McGaskil

The only area where css is better perhaps, but for larger screened devices I can't tell the difference visually.

[Jenery-A]

Joanofark wrote

The topic starter did qualify with 'at least where devices with larger displays are concerned, e.g ...'  Depending on the CSS formatting, I tend to agree that there might not be much difference visually between how a table based page looks and how a CSSd one does.

Exactly why I made that point, so thankyou.

[Jenery-A]

McGaskil wrote

I think you can achieve more formatting options with css, unless you have nested tables or something like you could have with table bsed pages.


McGaskil

I used to use Dreamweaver a long time ago, and you could have say a table within a cell which in turn was embedded in the main table.  There were very few editing options you couldn't do with this!

[McGaskil]

Jenery-A wrote

McGaskil wrote

I think you can achieve more formatting options with css, unless you have nested tables or something like you could have with table bsed pages.


McGaskil

I used to use Dreamweaver a long time ago, and you could have say a table within a cell which in turn was embedded in the main table.  There were very few editing options you couldn't do with this!

The html in your pages must have been very difficult to follow.

[Joanofark]

McGaskil wrote

Jenery-A wrote

McGaskil wrote

I think you can achieve more formatting options with css, unless you have nested tables or something like you could have with table bsed pages.


McGaskil

I used to use Dreamweaver a long time ago, and you could have say a table within a cell which in turn was embedded in the main table.  There were very few editing options you couldn't do with this!

The html in your pages must have been very difficult to follow.

Nested tables might have resulted in slightly untidy markup, but if it did the job...

[McGaskil]

If nested tables did the job, why was CSS introduced in the first place?

[a.brin]

Probably to introduce another layer of complexity to the whole thing knowing that very few would be familiar with it.

[ATH019]

I agree with this - @a.brin.  Everything was fine with table-based pages and the html editors used to create them, then CSS was introduced that shifted the goal posts causing a lot of headaches.