940

PlEaSe CeNtEr ThAt DiV (lemmy.world)

submitted 1 year ago by rcmaehl@lemmy.world to c/programmer_humor@programming.dev

144 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[-] Acetamide@lemmy.world 38 points 1 year ago

Let's just design every website using a table again. Or even better, frames!

[-] eevee@lemm.ee 33 points 1 year ago

Don’t forget image maps!

[-] Haarukkateroitin@sopuli.xyz 10 points 1 year ago

Laughs in frameset!

Kids nowdays try hard to do with divs what was already possible with framesets.

Also I feel bad every time I remember that was taken away from us!

[-] smpl@discuss.tchncs.de 7 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

What do you mean? I still write my sites in HTML 4.1 and frameset works fine in all the browsers I've tried. HTML 4.1 is still a standard, I can only recommend more people use it. HTML5 isn't really a standard.. it's a "living document".. pff.

You're allowed to <center> things and use `` without shame... or if you really do prefer it, you can still wrap that relative positioned <div> with auto margins in an absolute positioned parent <div> or whatever CSS bullshit makes stuff centered nowadays.

One thing I always though was very backwards in CSS is the paradigme to make <div> into tables instead of the other way. Tables are an easy and simple way to layout things and if it could degrade into divs you'd have your responsive design making many related CSS standards unnecessary.

[-] dot20@lemmy.world 5 points 1 year ago

Sheriff? Yes, this commenter right here.

[-] smpl@discuss.tchncs.de 2 points 1 year ago

Oh no you wouldn't..

knocks on door
It's the Wild Web Sheriff!
What the.. You'll never catch me!
rumble
a vase breaks
silence
Okay, okay I was just kidding. Tables are bad. HTML5 is the future.

[-] dot20@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

“And so the Gods (also known as the W3C) spoke down to the Programmers and said: ‘You shall not use tables for non-tabular data.’ And so it was.”

[-] traches@sh.itjust.works 5 points 1 year ago

You're insane if you think doing layouts with tables is easier than flexbox/grid.

[-] smpl@discuss.tchncs.de 1 points 1 year ago

In the context of the modern web, I take that as a badge of honor. I've build pages using flexbox/grid and I've done so only for the sake of responsive layout, because of the way that tables can't degrade to a bunch of boxes, but a bunch of boxes can by styled to look like a table. It is a convoluted way of doing table layout instead of just using a table.

[-] traches@sh.itjust.works 5 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

A table has semantic meaning: it's for presenting tabulated data, not for building layouts. That's why they behave the way they do and require the format they require. Table layouts have always been a hack, it's just that for awhile there weren't better options.

Again, you are insane if you're still doing table layouts in 2023.

[-] qwertyqwertyqwerty@lemmy.world 13 points 1 year ago

I stand by that iframes had their place, even if the backend devs absolutely hated them.

[-] thebardingreen@lemmy.starlightkel.xyz 21 points 1 year ago

Running each app component in it's own iframe is perfectly valid microservices architecture change my mind.

[-] LuckyCharmsNSoyMilk@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 1 year ago

Technically correct.

[-] aloso@programming.dev 13 points 1 year ago

They still have their place; for example to embed Google Maps or a YouTube video. Generally, whenever you want to embed something from a different website you have no control over, that shouldn't inherit your style sheets, and should be sandboxed to prevent cross site scripting attacks.

[-] emidio@lemmy.blahaj.zone 3 points 1 year ago

Are iframes really sandboxed in different processes than the main frame? On which browsers?

[-] aloso@programming.dev 12 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Iframes cannot access the main frame's DOM if the iframe is from a different origin than the main frame, and they never share the same JavaScript execution context, so an iframe can't access the main frame's variables etc.

It's not required that iframes run in a different process, but I think they do at least in Chrome and Firefox if they're from a different origin. Also, iframes with the sandbox attribute have a number of additional restrictions, which can be individually disabled when needed.

[-] aaaa@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago

Seems to me they were mostly used to put content inside a scrollable element. Their place has mostly been taken by overflow:auto hasn't it? I think this is the better way.

[-] SixTrickyBiscuits@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago

I believe Kingdom of Loathing used iframes extensively to achieve what looked like a "dynamic" page long before that was a thing.

[-] theangryseal@lemmy.world 11 points 1 year ago

Oooh I loved my inline frames.

I was so fucking proud of that. My links down the left side, two inline frames neatly in a box on the right, perfectly designed in two versions. One for 800x600, the other for 1024x768.

I did websites for bands from East Tennessee, one for a weird website for survivors of “satanic ritual abuse”. I thought it was nuts but I made a hundred bucks.

I wouldn’t even know where to start on the modern web. I’m fine with that too. I lost the passion for it when everyone under the sun wanted me to be their free tech support years ago.

I remember when I first started on homestead. Seeing my dangling skeleton gifs and my “under construction” banners made me feel like something. There it was, the World Wide Web, and I had my own place on it. Perpetually under construction.

I used to love browsing geocities and the log in name would be right there in the link. Something like geocities.com/cartman1988

I’d guess the password and change things around on their page to mess with them. “Hmmm, Cartman eh? Let’s try southpark. I’M IN. Time to photoshop dicks on this dude’s face!”

To be a kid again.

Y’all got me all old and nostalgic here. :p