- This topic is empty.
December 13, 2012 at 5:31 pm #117304AnonymousInactive
I guess the question now is what exactly @begetolo is using this for.
If it’s for layout (say something like columns in the footer), and the site is responsive, display: table; would be the clear victor because of the lack of true control over table cells.
If however he is making a static width side and is using this to display content on a page instead of to assemble the layout of said page, I stand by using a table instead of a div with display: table;. It’s truly what the table was designed for.
Thanks for the input @chriscoyier!December 14, 2012 at 3:56 am #117340
To clarify where I want to use it, take a look at this site: http://www.rbk.nl. This site is in development and there still many little things to do. Have look and please do give advice and/or tips…
The last image on the page is ‘The One’.
Now it is just one big image. I have to make the individual (square) pieces click-able and therefore have to break the big image in smaller pieces. The ‘+’ and the ‘=’ could then be just plain text with a color and vertical centered. I need to keep the site responsive.
Perhaps one of you have another solution or idea how to approach this? For now i’m leaning towards jQuery, but just plain CSS would be better i think. I tried the ‘table’ option, but this breaks in IE8. (there are very much problems with tables in IE8, especially where TD width is concerned).
I haven’t tried display:table yet.
Thanks very much for your time.December 14, 2012 at 11:05 am #117430AnonymousInactiveDecember 14, 2012 at 11:07 am #117431December 14, 2012 at 11:10 am #117432Paulie_DMember
…and there you have it. No table settings required at all.
If only we’d had the link to start with. :)December 15, 2012 at 1:57 pm #117540
Thanks everybody for your help. And have nice holidays and a good 2013 (bit early…)December 16, 2012 at 5:00 pm #117715
- The forum ‘CSS’ is closed to new topics and replies.