1. I have no problem with you using Blogger, however I do have to ask if you felt css was so bad at layouts why would you choose a system that uses css? Wouldn’t you want to develop layouts with tables if you think they’re better than css?

2. I’m not arguing that you should use css because you can do anything with css that you can do with tables. I’m saying it in reaction to the argument that you can’t use css, because it can’t do everything that tables do.

The lame part is suggesting that css can’t do what tables do, since it’s not true. I’m simply pointing out that untruth.

I’m not sure if you’re interested in carrying the debate further, but I have a more recent post on the subject, CSS vs Tables: The Debate That Won’t Die on the subject, which I think is a better post than this one, It’s a few years old, but it is 3 1/2 years more recent than this post.

A couple of notes:
1. OMG, I’m using Blogger with CSS!

Yep. I’m using Blogger – or I was. I recently finally sorted out my hosting issues and put up a Wordpress site. Regardless, Blogger’s a matter of expediency – and I’m not religious about this stuff. I use whatever works. And to use Blogger, you use CSS.

Whether it’s fit for purpose is another matter. It’s like the choice between aspirin and tamiflu. Both will alleviate symptoms. Tamiflu makes your flu go away faster; the aspirin just hides the pain for a little while.

2. As for nothing you can do with tables that you can’t do with CSS? That’s a pretty lame argument. There’s nothing that you can do with a computer that you can’t do with pencil and paper. Heck, I could do my layout entirely with absolutely positioned images of each character in the alphabet – that doesn’t mean it’s the best, easiest, or least error-prone way.

I’ve built a few websites… http://frogchildren.com is one. A few others went offline as companies changed directions, and I’ve been doing this on and off since 1994. Still doesn’t change that CSS is arcane, when it should be simple.

First a question. Can you tell me which popular browsers have trouble with this layout when the text is enlarged? It seems to work fine on every browser I check. If I did miss something please let me know so I can fix it.

There is nothing that you can do with tables that can’t be done with css. So far 100% of the time I’ve heard someone argue that something can’t be done in css it’s because the person hasn’t taken the time to learn css.

CSS is so much easier to develop with and so much easier to maintain. I have a hard time understanding why anyone would still use tables for site layout.

By the way the site you link to arguing in favor of tables uses exactly 0 tables for it’s layout. It’s an all css layout. Yes I do realize it’s a Blogger blog, but I would think someone who argues that css isn’t good for layouts would look for a blogging platform that doesn’t use css.

You might also want to check your dates. The CSS 1.0 spec is from 1996 and it was a few years after when browsers became fully compliant with the spec. That means it’s been closer to 10 years or one decade and not two.

When I received my degree in Computer Science – Programming, table based design was not an anomaly, it was the standard. CSS was used for Typography and Style site-wide.

That was then, this is now. Do you advocate always going back to the way things were? Should we go back to bloodletting and leeches as a cure for most all ailments too? They were the standard too at one point.

http://www.accidentalscientist.com/2007/07/css-sucks-for-layout.html

Your layout broke on text enlargement in several popular browsers. The fact remains that design structure easy to tables is impossible with CSS.

In the two decades that CSS has been available for use, one might expect that design and structure should be better implemented.

When I received my degree in Computer Science – Programming, table based design was not an anomaly, it was the standard. CSS was used for Typography and Style site-wide.

Regards