Today we crusade against the completely fucking useless nested tables from hell. Your support, preferably in the form of nice soothing backrubs or delectable foodstuffs, is appreciated.
I handled the backrub situation last week, so foodstuffs would probably be called for. I'll let you be dragged out to dinner by me sometime this week. And if you're extra nice I may give you a neckrub anyway.
I can give sympathy at least. CFUNTFH (looks like a Lovecraftian curse word) are also the bane of my existance. WHY, I scream, and tear my hair. WHY are there seventeen EMPTY nested tables which if I change any the whole thing breaks? WHY can't I burn down Fusion and Dreamweaver, or at least require a license for their operation?
The tally of the vanquished is mounting. The page I'm working on started out with five tables, two of them with one row and one cell each (i.e., CFU), and abounding in colspans and rowspans that did absolutely nothing (due to their being only the one cell in most of the tables, you understand). Now it has one table with one row and three cells, and the cells are proportional instead of being oh-dear-gods optimized for 640x480 in hardcoded pixels. The HTML tamer is tired now and will take a break to play with Photoshop.
Damn transporter is broke again! Else I'd offer to rub that poor tense back and then ply you with delicacies from whichever harborside eatery you prefered. Or if you'd you rather, just go straight to chocolates?
As a user of software, I loathe nested tables. I understand the reasoning that says they're useful, but I pity anyone who is forced to work with them.
Well, it *is* a cartoon. But the hair is parted on the right side, and it's about the right length, and of the available clothes, those seemed the most applicable to me. I'd have prefered some more options too, I'll admit. But hey, it was fun playing around at the STOR website.
But let's not clutter up Kylee's LJ with this. We can ply her with chocolates instead.
Except that when I read that the first time, my brain conjured image of the little end tables that we have in the living room, that nest inside each other. And so I was mightily confused as to why they would be completely fucking useless. They're actually quite handy.
Some of the default Livejournal styles are full of nested tables. I didn't realise until I went through fiddling with them to make my own styles. Some of my styles still have nested tables, but I'm going to get rid of them as soon as I have a spare 5 or 6 hours to play with.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
timeasmymeasure
no subject
Date: 2002-04-29 11:36 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2002-04-29 11:46 am (UTC)Also, here is a nice orange for you.
no subject
Date: 2002-04-29 01:09 pm (UTC)The tally of the vanquished is mounting. The page I'm working on started out with five tables, two of them with one row and one cell each (i.e., CFU), and abounding in colspans and rowspans that did absolutely nothing (due to their being only the one cell in most of the tables, you understand). Now it has one table with one row and three cells, and the cells are proportional instead of being oh-dear-gods optimized for 640x480 in hardcoded pixels. The HTML tamer is tired now and will take a break to play with Photoshop.
no subject
Date: 2002-04-29 01:10 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2002-04-29 12:45 pm (UTC)As a user of software, I loathe nested tables. I understand the reasoning that says they're useful, but I pity anyone who is forced to work with them.
no subject
Date: 2002-04-29 10:32 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2002-04-30 05:23 am (UTC)But let's not clutter up Kylee's LJ with this. We can ply her with chocolates instead.
no subject
Date: 2002-04-29 01:38 pm (UTC)Except that when I read that the first time, my brain conjured image of the little end tables that we have in the living room, that nest inside each other. And so I was mightily confused as to why they would be completely fucking useless. They're actually quite handy.
*backrub*
no subject
Date: 2002-04-29 10:33 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2002-05-01 05:49 pm (UTC)(That'll be sometime in 2004, then :) )