Hacker News Reader

Comment by slapo | Hacker News Reader

I don't think that's accurate. It was old Internet Explorer that wouldn't render tables progressively.

See here, where it includes a demo: https://www.vbulletin.org/forum/showthread.php?t=161099

Non-table layouts also came into fashion when screen resolutions started to vary more, and some degree of fluidity and responsiveness could've been implemented with non-table layouts while IE was still a target. However, IE was lacking so badly even with IE8 that a lot of CSS that had been a W3C recommendation for years at that point just either didn't work, it was quirky because IE handled the box model a little differently. Ít was one of the reasons why Javascript shims and IE-specific CSS had to help out fairly often.

View on HN

> I don't think that's accurate. It was old Internet Explorer that wouldn't render tables progressively.

IIRC Netscape didn't either around the IE4/5 days. It also had significant performance problems with large sets of nested tables which IE6 (and perhaps IE5) did not.

For example back at University on 133MHz Pentium-class CPUs a large slashdot page with all threads open could take minutes to render where IE took merely a noticeable number of seconds - a co-student use to make a big thing of this as a reason to dump other browsers and use IE. There was actually a use case for this away from the University's fixed line connection: on dial up you could, RAM+swap and browser-not-crashing permitting, open a couple of windows like that then disconnect the modem and read at your leisure without racking up a per-minute phone bill.

Or maybe NS was capable of progressive display and this was just hidden in extreme cases by the performance issue, that was a time ago and memory is hazy…

I haven't worked with Netscape that old, only some time after it became free of charge, but I remember it was really slow at just about anything compared to IE 5.5 and 6 - startup, rendering, UI. To the point that even if it could render tables progressively, it wouldn't really matter on my computer (which I think was either an Intel Penium II or an AMD Duron 850), despite only having a dial-up connection.

I think it was around the time of Firefox 1.6 when it felt like it was about on par with IE 6 in rendering speed for me, after tweaking some of its settings. I think it was also rendering tables progressively at the time.

> I don't think that's accurate. It was old Internet Explorer that wouldn't render tables progressively.

You both agree and disagree with my comment :)

If memory serves me right, I started migrating off table layouts at the time when IE6 was still by far the most popular browser (>80% of the market?).

IE had a setting that forced tables to render progressively. They documented it on the Microsoft web dev site and also I’m reasonably sure in their “cool things you can do in IE5.5” book.

Didn't know that! Wonder what made them choose to turn this off by default. Must be an interesting eng story.

I used it and it almost progressively updated too often - like cell by cell, so it wasn’t very pretty. So you kind of had to know when to use it and when not to.

So did I, but at the time, screen resolutions were starting to vary more.

It was probably a case of killing several birds with one stone - make layouts fluid while avoiding IE's issues with rendering tables.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com