This page is laid out with old-fashioned borderless HTML tables. I do not understand some people's insistence that web pages should, indeed must, be laid out in Cascading Style Sheets.
I acknowledge that CSS allows you to create effects that cannot be duplicated in plain HTML. Since most people seem to use it to create low-contrast grey type on pale grey backgrounds, I question whether these effects are necessary. Tables, while they may require more coding (and thence download more slowly), look pretty much the same on everything.
Using CSS is inherently arrogant: Implicit is the assumption that your content is worth downloading software I don't otherwise need to see it correctly. For some of you, this is true. I have no attention of saying any such thing to either of my readers.
LATER: OK. I admit it. This may be the least-thought-out thing I've said since I started blogging. I'm just an old fart who doesn't want to learn new technology. I remember when tables were the Next New Thing, and people were complaining about having to upgrade their browsers to see them correctly. Then it was table background graphics and colors (which my page uses: These floating boxes are borderless table cells with individual background colors, separated by background-less table cells through which the page background shows). Now it's CSS. *sigh* I reckon I'll larn it 'ventually...
I remember writing web pages in Notepad. Now I use Dreamweaver 3.0. I don't want to go back... Does the current version do WYSIWYG CSS? Does anything?
And yes, Andrea, that's exactly what I meant. :)
LATER STILL: C'mon, Walker, PhotoDude and TurkeyBlog, I apologized, okay?