text:
Tables? Oh, the horror!May 15, 2004
Apparently there remains some confusion after my Thursday-afternoon rumination on the potential use of tables, as opposed to pure CSS-based layouts. I'm going to share some of my experience to help clear this up.
Some of the comments on this site were discouraging, it sounds like the original piece was interpreted to advocate laziness. Some of the replies on other sites perpetuated this interpretation, so once more, tables should be considered only with the proper education to use them responsibly. This means attention to accessibility, as well as offloading all other presentational attributes to the CSS, leaving the simplest of layout-structural tables.
The point I was clear to make was that I am not talking about dropping CSS and going back to 1997-era coding techniques. Standards-based coding practices aren't so fragile that a small injection of common sense and/or objective analysis will excuse full-scale dismissal, so let's not pretend like the world is going to use this discussion as a springboard to revert; chances are the people who would are doing so anyway.
I am suggesting merely that in some cases, it might make sense to explore a
layout table. Again, I do not mean three-level-deep nested tables rife with the required
colspans. I mean a light table with two or three columns to keep a layout
together, sans all other presentational markup. This is what I have in mind:

(Column One)
(Column Two)
(Column Three)
cellspacing remains simply because the CSS equivalent (
er, that is,
0 applied to
border-spacing is what I was looking for here [thanks to those who clarified]) isn't well supported. The

 remains merely because it's still required. The important piece of
this table is that three columns keep the layout together, as expected.
Why am I saying this might be preferable over floats or absolute positioning? First of all, the pitfall of absolute positioning is that placing a footer below the three columns is near impossible. Creating this layout using absolute positioning causes a reliance on one of the columns to be longer than the others; given a dynamic site, if you build this reliance in to your work you'll get bitten by it sooner or later. Pages will start looking funny when a column grows longer than intended, as the content area grows shorter.
Floats, then, are the more reliable way to achieve your three columns. Except that they
have their own glitches too. The most popular browser on earth, IE6, has spectacularly
inconvenient error-handling in this regard. Anyone who has built more than one or two
sites with floats knows what I'm talking about: a placed element too wide for its container,
be it an
 or a

-wrapped chunk of text, will
cause the parent element to grow to contain it. Other browsers let the content overflow to no
ill effect other than a bit of overlapping, but because the parent element resizes in IE,
the column gets bumped all the way below the others and you have a situation no one
is happy with.
I'm hearing contention against the claim that proper CSS design is hard. Okay, fair enough, learning the basics isn't terribly difficult. Learning the basics well so that you know how to keep the above scenarios from happening is a different matter, and requires browser-specific tricks that go against the nature of what CSS is meant for. Anyone can build a fixed-pixel layout in CSS with known font sizes, that's easy stuff. Build me a liquid three column layout that allows for text scaling in Internet Explorer, and watch how easy it is to break by increasing your font size. Especially once the code leaves your hands. This is where it gets hard, folks.
Which brings me to my next point — working with other team members and clients. I mentioned this on Thursday, but it bears repeating. There are many different working conditions out there which don't match your own. Assuming because you know how to maintain your layout integrity with CSS that everyone else can is a leap of faith, or the by-product of a cozy environment that doesn't test your endurance.
I've worked in settings both where I've dictated all markup start to finish, and where
I've had to rely on others to continue producing valid, well-formed, structural markup.
The first scenario makes it dead simple to assure a site's continued abstraction of
presentation, the second does not. Even if you have the most responsive team members, you're
still limited to what they know. Like it or not, many people look at markup from a
presentational standpoint, ie. "this form element needs to sit below this label, insert

 here." Either you have to clean this up after them, or more likely,
you've moved on to other projects by this point and don't have the time to.
A little bit of presentational markup isn't going to hurt things, and probably, alone, isn't a justification for a structural table. What is is how likely the chances are that anyone not-you is going to trigger something like the IE float problem mentioned above. Anecdote: I built a site earlier this year that worked fine with my sample data. When passed off to the client for implementation, breakage occured. The culprit turned out to be a small piece of non-semantic markup that was used in various spots over years of accumulated content. I was not contracted to clean up the content; the client had no desire to fix years worth of material. The seemingly easiest fix was to throw the page into a structural table. I knew a CSS hack or two to work around this, and we didn't end up using it after all; but would everyone?
Let's also not forget that we're talking amongst people who have spent a lot of time working with this stuff, and that there are those who haven't. For a beginner transitioning to CSS-based design, a few iterations of table layouts that move more and more presentation to the CSS is one of the better ways to learn. Even once the intricacies of positioning are fully understood, it takes time to become comfortable with them. Let's cut these folks some slack; their continued use of a table is just fine if they're continuing their education so one day they don't have to.
And finally, let's talk semantics. I hate discussing semantics, personal interpretations (unavoidably) shade the conversations. But let's do it anyway. This is the point that's going to get me into the most trouble because everyone is going to have a different take, but I'm going to throw it out there. Using a table for tabular data is universally accepted as being proper use of a table. Which carries with it the assumption that the table is structural and not presentational in that case. Fair enough.
But if tabular data is structurally tabular, then what inherently (besides a fear of the
past) makes a two- or three-column layout structurally non-tabular? Two columns
invariably end up in a pair of

s, or a pair of
s. What makes the former structural, but the latter any less so? A
pair of

s implies two distinct, separated blocks of structure; a
pair of
s does the same, and carries with it the further implication
that the blocks are structurally side-by-side columns. Two columns may be presentational to
some, but they may be structural to others.
I'm not committed to the notion, but it's something to think about. There are those who
would advocate multiple nested lists (scroll
down to Tantek's technique) as a structural replacement for the

s we
use today, so if there are two ways to look at semantic representation of data, there are
just as easily three.
Anyway, at the risk of sparking a howl over the last point and ignoring what went before it, I'll finish by saying this is based on the sum of my experiences in real-world situations. There are many factors at play here, and boiling this discussion down to "tables bad, CSS good" is counter-productive at best.
I'll end with the contentious quote of the day, coming from Joe Clark:
If smart, informed people are using
i, it's because they have made smart, informed decisions to do so. We're not slacking off; we're not making a mistake; we're not harming the grand ideals of semantics or accessibility. We're not doing anything but using
Different argument, misappropriated quote, but similar sentiment. Semantics only get you so far; at some point, you have to compromise and just use the tools you have at your disposal.
Reader Comments
Great follow-up to a slightly confusing post. I've had many projects where I could have save myself time (and my client money) by simply using a layout table instead of trying to absolutely position divs all over the page.
I guess it boils down to "we've come a long way, but let's not forget our roots."
Dave, I'm pretty sure I didn't misunderstand your original post, but after reading through the comments I got the feeling that some people did.
Anyway, after this follow-up I doubt anyone will still be confused :).
What I feel it boils down to is:
Use your common sence!
"Some of the comments on this site were discouraging, it sounds like the original piece was interpreted to advocate laziness."
It was not. But it for sure will be taken by many as an excuse for going on "the old way". Not ready for CSS in 2001, not ready in 2004… Story goes on.
Yes, the table you have in example is ok (except of cellspacing, I think border-collapse takes care of it), but I seriously doubt you will find many sites built using this minimal table. Either they will be pure css (some exceptions for really complicated cases), or messy nested tables.
No, I am not against tables for layout, but I am seriously confused when I see 30 or 40 or 100+ for the one page (and I am not making it up).
And I don't think every web developer will switch to pure CSS layouts. It is not about how difficult or how easy CSS is. It is about how difficult or how easy is to separate structure and visual presentation in your mind. Put an before the word and it will be in italic - that's easy. Inheritance, context and child selectors - that may be much more difficult to grasp. "You don't style anything in your markup, and then you have it styled in some separate file? Weird!".
I wish everything could be perfect. Browsers supporting the standards 100%, coders knowing the standards like they know their birthdates, and for gas prices to be under a buck fifteen. But we all know this will never happen. Just roll with it.
Don't spend to much time trying to convert people. This pure CSS layout speach is starting to sound a little cult-like.
An excellent example of the proper semantic use of tables in a CSS-based design can be found here:
When I first saw the source for this table, I saw some attributes that I had never seen before (the scope attribute in particular). I'm very interested to learn more about their use.
Tables certainly still have a place in (x)html–just not as a tool for page structure. We need more examples of how to use them properly.
Thank you Dave. One of the reasons why I read your blog on a regular basis is because you are one of the few who advocate standards, and with quite a bit of thought…as opposed to many who don't want to think about it, they'd rather "jump on the bandwagon"…
(edited the paragraph I was just going to write).
If most of the people commenting here are all about documents and only documents, then (for the most part) I will agree–try to avoid using tables for layout. If you're developing in some other paradigm that happens to use HTML as the "rendering mechanism", then in my mind all bets are off. Why? Because in general, you are aiming development at a particular platform.
Please bear in mind that the standards are there so that we, as developers, can write once and deploy everywhere. Also bear in mind the disconnect in the implementation of those standards, and account for them as well. I personally am not going to take the time (unless its part of the scope of what I'm developing) to figure out a way of using CSS to accomplish–completely–what I can do with a table.
I also wish that some of those who advocate pure CSS for the sake of advocating pure CSS would realize sometimes that the client is not the only place things can be written or adjusted. I think its perfectly reasonable to be able to create a semantic document store, and alter it (a la the last comment, or via some other means) for presentational purposes on a particular client. The really nice thing about this solution is that you can serve in a number of different formats (including the pure semantic version) if you so desire.
To summarize–don't stop advocating, but understand that we are still in the early stages (believe it or not) with web tech, and haven't gotten to the same point that, say, tools or home items have gotten to.
And I certainly will never feel bad when I use a table within an HTML document.
(now, if I used a font tag…then I'd invite all y'all to come and shoot me ;)
whoops, sorry. I thought for some reason that the last comment was the one where someone mentioned XML and XSL. Must be the other thread.
For those who care, I'm referring to using XML as the document structure and XSL to transform it into a presentation mechanism.
Many good thoughts in that writeup, Dave.
I agree with your suggestion that TDs in some cases are no less semantic than DIVs. To expand on two of those points:
1. The main argument I always hear against tables is that "they were originally intended for tabular data – not to position columns." Well floats were never intended to position columns either. They were intended to shove items like pictures and pullquotes off to the side and have paragraphs flow around them (kind of like the old school align=left you'd always give to inline images in the middle of paragraphs). So if people are going to question the original intent of a table, *they must apply the same scrutiny to floats*.
Absolute positioning, however, was intended to do exactly what we are talking about: separating layouts into discrete areas of screen real estate. Most people find absolutes much easier to deal with, and much less susceptible to the fragility that floats suffer from. Also, they free up your source order tremendously. With floats, you always have to worry about which div comes before which in the code.
A few days ago, I suggested on Andy Budd's site that if the *ONE* Achilles heel of absolute positioning could be solved, everyone would use it. That is, as you mentioned, absolutes get taken completely out of the document flow and thus cannot be "cleared" as a group, as is most evident in the example of placing a footer. Well, no sooner did I make that suggestion did Shaun Inman, one of my idols of late, solve that problem beautifully, albeit it with javascript: http://www.shauninman.com/mentary/past/clear_positioned_elements.php . Now, neither Shaun nor myself are saying that a javascript solution is 100% the way to go, but it does point out one important thing:
Browsers *can* calculate how to clear absolute divs, so if the CSS spec was written without this critical feature missing, we'd all be using absolute positioning all the time.
2. To carry your TD example further, take the example of a two column blog. The main column is your main entries. The side column is your peripheral information like links, blogrolls, archives, etc. How is this any different, semantically, from a two-column table where the left side is, let's say "Reasons the Mariners will win" and the right side is "Reasons the Yankees will win"? You'd certainly consider the latter tabular data, so why not the former?
I think where it starts to get non-semantic is when you use tables to split images into grids, like with a row of vertical navigation buttons done as images. That, can certainly be considered using a table beyond its intended use, but splitting up a couple of columns doesn't necessarily qualify as the same crime.
I share the feeling, why be a massochist when there is a clear structure to present tabular data and that is … roffel… roffel… yes a table.
While it is silly to use tables as main presentation tool for all sorts web widgets because of the double pass.
It is just a tool like any other tag used in xml and as long as you use it to carry tabular data and do not nest it within other tables, use other markup means like span (inline) and div (block) to manipulate the inside of a cell.
anyway, choose a table when the workaround in pure css with divs are not worth time and headaches and when unlucky processor power, that is all rows with more than 4 columns anyway.
Re: cellspacing. The margin property is not actually intended to be used for spacing table cells. That's why it's not supported in that capacity by most/all browsers.
The correct property for this is border-spacing, which last I checked was supported by Mozilla but not Win/IE (haven't checked any others). However, whether or not *any* border-spacing (or the cellspacing attribute) is used is determined by border-collapse: collapse/separate; and this is supported by every browser I've tried it on.
So, to get your cellspacing: 0 tables without a single HTML attribute involved, in almost all CSS-capable browsers, simply apply border-collapse: collapse to the table element.
As a novice CSS user I think CSS is beta code at best. If it was a programming language you wouldn't even consider it for production code.
Having said that I am using CSS because it is fast and efficient. But I get frustrated when really hacky CSS or utter perversions of existing semantics get propagated purely in the name of not using tables. Take the Numbered List Pairs discussion over at Simple Bits as a case in point. To my mind that just makes the whole CSS movement look bad.
The whole flexible grid layout metaphor is very powerfull. Unfortunately neither tables nor CSS map to it particularly well. If anything tables are the better fit.
And please. please, keep your absolute positioning away from my browser. To my mind the introduction of absolute dimensions to HTML/XHTML/CSS was one of the biggest retrograde steps in the history of the browser. In my occupation I am dealing with documents on the web more than pretty visuals and documents inevitably get written in MS Word. Because absolute sizes are available MS Word uses them and the result is abyssmal and totally contrary to the spirit of html.
Okay … sorry for the rant … I'll shut up now. 8-(
Scott (comment 6) wants to know about the "scope" attribute.
It's how you identify whether a table header (the  element) is a row header or a column header.
This is a rather basic requirement for creating accessible tables (the real kind, not the "layout" tables being discussed here).
See, e.g.:
I agree that tables are still required in certain real world situations, and I don't mean to undermine that essential point. But trying to find a semantic justification for this is troublesome. The reason tables are still required is, as you say, the varying implementations of CSS in browser technologies which lead to inconsistencies of display. Not because they are an alternative way to structure block data semantically–they really are for tabular data.
If everyone were to use tables for tabular data, the tighter semantic meaning of the element ("this is tabular data") will enable software to do more with it. What has generally filtered down as "tables bad, divs good" was originally not a subjective edict: it derives from the fact that tables have a very precise semantic meaning, and divs have just about the loosest possible semantic meaning ("a block of data"). Divs are actually bad semantically, because to software trying to interpret the meaning of their contents, they explain virtually nothing. It is a good idea to find something more meaningful, but of course XHTML is quite limited in its options. It's still better to use a div from a semantic perspective than a table unless your data really is tabular, because you aren't diluting the semantic meaning of the element for everyone else–it actually can't be watered down much further, whereas tables can. (Incidentally, tabular data is hardly a mythological beast; there's a lot of it about, and there are plenty of occasions where tables are therefore the best semantic option.)
It's important not to see tables as exceptional in this regard; this is a concern that afflicts any element with a comparatively precise meaning semantically–including lists. There's a pretty simple rule of thumb for avoiding semantic dilution: "Is this really a list? Is this really a table? Is this really a definition? Or is this really just a block of content not adequately described by any current XHTML elements?"
That said, semantic purity is a long way off, and the practical benefits of anything like it are a fair way off too. Use tables if you have to, but I don't think it's a good idea to come up with semantic justifications that merely muddy the waters.
Steveg: By "absolute positioning" we don't mean absolute font sizes or absolute layout widths, as you mention in your Word example.
Absolute positioning refers to a specific property that is not actually absolute at all… it's relative to its containing block. So, I could make a left column that is 33% the width of the screen and make a right column which takes up that remain 67%, and that would be achieved with absolute positioning.
A few other things to note: Mike D, floats are presentational properties, not structural elements. They're in the stylesheet, not the xhtml, so they have zero semantic value. They're not even examined, so you can do the most preposterous things you like with them, and it is still 100% valid, and positively good. It's important not to confuse this.
Steveg, CSS is not beta, alpha or final code–there is no code. CSS is a specification, with many implementations in various browser technologies. Some of these implementations could be called "beta", if it makes you feel better. :)
Um. Could you not just use CSS to turn non-structural table-like code into something that acts like a table? Using display:table-cell?
Your point is a good one. Floats are not part of the structure of the document and thus they are not unkosher from a semantic standpoint. I do, however, feel less disappoint about their shortcomings as they relate to multi-column layouts than I do about the shortcomings of absolutes. Blaming floats for messing up your column layouts is like blaming your car for not flying. Using floats to create multi-column layouts still goes against what the W3C seems to have intended them for, whereas absolutes were made precisely for this.
The original intent might not necessarily even matter to people, but what matters to me is that absolutes were created specifically for this purpose and they come up short in one tiny but important way. A way which could have been avoided if someone just brought it up at spec time. A way which browsers themselves can see their way around, if injected with the right scripting.
Nice work Dave, fully agree..
Working in a team with different levels of expertise is where a single table can kill hours of fuss over floats and css hacks.
Sometimes its hard to use common sense when it directly compromises your beliefs.
@Hemebond, that's an interesting point and comparatively there is limited information around on such techniques.
Well said - I don't know what was what confused so many on your previous post. Over the years, We've taken our chances on client's sites implementing the best of our CSS knowledge and though we already have a bunch of great, functional, tableless sites under our arm, it is also true that they are a major pain to build, implement, and be way more time-consuming (in testing across browsers) than if we used a barebones table layout to hold all things together (We do it depending on the client's needs)
Note that I said "barebones table" not "a bunch of nested tables". Of course, we use tables when it comes to show tabular data (duh!) as well.
Bottom line: Being a web standards advocate and supporter is a lofty goal and must be an important commitment, but it is even more important to have a life. You know what I mean.
Mike D: Thanks for that clarification. An unfortunately misleading name. Proportional positioning anyone?
Joseph: I understand that. My bad for missing the "like" that I was thinking. However the specification is still beta quality. I would much prefer that they cleaned it up and issued a validation suite before they moved on to CSS2 and CSS3.
I ran accross yet another quirk yesterday. In Galeon two divs with backgrounds one after the other. The backgrounds don't meet even with 0 width borders, margins, and padding. But, add a 1px border and they magically join up. Why? This is worse than the C compiler incompatabilities of the 80's and there is no way to look at the "generated code" (none generated) to see what assumpions are being made.
Yet … seperation of presentation and content is such a necessary thing to do. I just wish divs had an @import syntax so that I could split and reuse content as well. I just wish enough worked that I didn't have to spend time debugging what should be really basic layouts.
Bother. I left off:
I think I got a better, smoother result for using CSS but the pain! Tables work … if only they wern't so slow and jiggly.
Hi Dave,
Quite daring, to curse in front of your own church assembly. ;-) I can understand where you're going, though: if technically carried out well, the only thing separating tables-for-presentation and 'semantically correct' div layouts is personal conviction.
In one respect, there seems to be no signifigant difference between table cells or divs if used for presentational purposes. Both are redundant elements, added to information to provide hinges for your presentation. (Let's be frank: divs serve exactly the same purpose as tds, in this respect.)
There is one flipside, however, that's important: with tables, you imply a semantic link between the content 'blocks'. With divs, you do not. Three divs after eachother, or even nested, do not carry an intrinsic meaning.
Quite interesting: I've never seen headers for presentational tables. Would be daft, but correct: [th]navigation[/th] [th]main column[/th] [th]side column[/th]. You can always use your text-indent: -9999px; to hide the headers, ofcourse. ;-)
Like Roger, there really was no confusion, as you pur it, on my part when it came to writing the article on my site.
Whereas we're all on the same level in believeing that CSS is a great thing, it just happens that where some see a place for tables in layout, others don't.
My main concern, however, is that some seem to have interpreted these articles as "Hey kids! Stuff this CSS layout malarkey, tables are cool!".
There is a difference between people who think logically and fanatics. The fanatic tends to get fired after he failed his 3rd deadline.
Quote: "Just.. use.. tables.. please? We need it done yesterday."
Quote: "You've been busy with that XSL template for 3 days now. Done yet? Oh you have been checking it on W3c a lot.. nice.. is it done?"
Quote: "Oh wow it works on a browser 0.0003% of the world is using. Great for your ego. Say, we just got a call from that customer, he's wondering why the middle column overlaps the bottom of the site when he enters too much text."
Quote: "Hey we're going home and taking tomorrow off, too. I asume you continue working tonight, tomorrow, and in the weekend? Yes? Great! Maybe we will finish this deadline this week."
Quote: "So you worked thursday evening, friday when we were having a day off, saturday AND sunday, and you are STILL busy implementing 'hacks' to your CSS?"
Quote: "A hack you say? Nice. What happens when this 'bug' is fixed with IE7? We will have to change it? I see… remove it."
Quote: "Overworked? No. You're fired."
Tables were used to do the layout from the middle ages, because it was the safest way to do it. IExplorer hasn't changed since, so why should we abandon these practices? We have CSS, but until IE doesn't evolve, we cannot rely entirely on it.
I think the whole 'it needs to render correctly in IE' is overrated. With only a few hacks/tweaks, it's possible to achieve nearly the same results in IE6 or MOSe.
The whole, 'We need to support NN4' should be bannished. If you can run NN4, you can run FireFox or some other lightweigt standards compatible browser.
I believe CSS compliance will be on IE-devs' short list, not in a small part due to the overwhelming amount of comments on the Scoble blog, including comments from some of our 'mentors'. Then again, the whole XaML thing could be a threat to the very fabric of the www.
What i'm really trying to say is,… keep your panties on! If tables are your thing, go ahead, I DON'T care… personally I enjoy the serene simplicity that CSS-based layouts bring.
Dave, keep on doing a great a job, and we'll keep on reading.
I think the main difference between a bare table for layout and divs for layout is that divs are more flexible about the order within the HTML.
With tables, you have no choice but to have left-middle-right equate to top-middle-bottom in the source.
With divs you can have the visual left-middle-right (or nav-content-sidebar) equate to the more logical content-sidebar-nav in the source.
But as you suggest, with poor error handling, overlapping footers and no min/max width, it's a tricky layout to persue.
amen. i feel vindicated.
for all my kowtowing and beating-head-on-keyboard in my efforts to learn and use CSS, i still use a 3 column table as a base, and build everything inside it (with little other markup, as you suggest).
it's a comfortable way for me to learn CSS without the angst of floats and positioning. however it also makes me feel guilty and inadequate because i'm not doing it "properly".
/me tosses nasty guilt aside and continues the learning curve.
I am all up into this topic. As a new comer to the css design blog scene it is funny how sometimes we can't see the trees from the woods, so to speak.
I think it is good that as a community there is a strong direction for coding well, but sometimes I feel that we become slaves of semantics or what-not. I am sure there are many people who have had a similar experience coding something that really, really should be in a table second guessing themselves as to whether it should be.
It just seems to go a bit far sometimes.
Those quotes that were posted were interesting, and suprising coming from me, I found them to be pretty true. Doesn't happen all the time, but for me, I can't afford to spend extra time a client DOESN'T have just to worry about getting a CSS layout to work. When a client is paying $15,000 for a website and their site launch is on the 15th, well, that site better be launched on the 15th. Too be honest, I have strayed from building a PURE CSS layout for my companies clients because of the inconsistincies I am worried about happening when they view their site. Many of our clients still use old browsers where the css support is iffy. So my solution is to do a hybrid layout (Tables + CSS).
My recipe is just a nice light table (1 at the most) stripped of all the flavor (no borders, margins, padding, etc…). Then it is sprinkled with a nice linked stylesheet to give it the BAM that it needs. Sometimes, you just have to use what will work and what falls under the clients timeline. Its their money, and the more hours you bill, the more money you spend of theirs, and the more money THEY spend, the less happy they are.
Hemebond - you *definately* have a point there! I did not see anyone giving much reaction to that, disappointingly.
I tried to arrange something with table CSS display properties a while ago… It yielded somewhat strange results but that might be due to misuse of the margin property or something, and lack of support in browsers. It was only a quick try and I didn't put much time in it, so I didn't research it thoroughly.
Afterwards, I only sporadically read something about it (this note in this discussion is only about the 3rd time I see it mentioned), but my general impression is that the main reason for not using those properties is that they are not very well supported. But, note that this is *not* due to actual experiences! It is really just what I gather from some rumours here and there. I think I will look into it in more extent soon.
The nice thing though with table display properties in CSS is that you don't need to have the whole table structured! CSS will basically 'make up' every table layer you forgot. You can create tables without TR tags, or even one without TABLE tags (and this might be the thing that IE doesn't support well, at least I could imagine it to be). So usually it probably won't require additional markup… Sounds very powerful to me…
I don't think I've seen it in the comments since the suggestions to use border-collapse, so I apologize if I'm repeating.
Mac IE 5 does not handle the border-collapse technique to replicate cellspacing="0". Most other recent browsers I've tested do. When I use tables, I go ahead and plug in the border-collapse in the CSS, but also add cellspacing="0" for Mac IE 5.
Someday, once that dead-end (per Microsoft) browser falls to fractional share, I can go back and take out cellspacing="0". 'Course I'll probably redesign any pages that carry it at least once more by then anyway. :-)
"Um. Could you not just use CSS to turn non-structural table-like code into something that acts like a table? Using display:table-cell?"
Because IE doesn't know how. Trust me, I've looked into this. It's not an option in 2004 unless you get into selectively serving one positioning method to IE, and another to everything else.
"I think the main difference between a bare table for layout and divs for layout is that divs are more flexible about the order within the HTML."
Hemebond: it's a great idea, except– sing it with me, now– applying table-related 'display' values to non-table elements doesn't work in IE/Win. So that's another promising idea shot to heck by practical considerations, I'm afraid.
Dave: as others have pointed out, but I'll reiterate, 'margin' does not apply to the internal elements of tables. CSS2.1:17.5, found at http://www.w3.org/TR/CSS21/tables.html#q7 , says this explicitly (it's the third sentence of the section).
Funny how not entirely new a concept discussed on a personal blog can be quickly misinterpreted and spread around the world in a totally different guise. I guess now you know how much weight your words carry. Maybe you are the John Lennon of Web Standards, or something lol :)
Wholeheartdedly agree that table structure is a useful alternative to wrestling with floats for a 3 column layout. I'm still pretty much terrified of them.
Hemebond: I worked up a test document (http://crossroads.net/misc/tabletest.html) using table layout on non-table elements. Works like a charm, except in IE.
>>what inherently (besides a fear of the past) makes a two- or three-column layout structurally non-tabular?<<
OK, I'll bite. DIVs and SPANs have no structural or semantic value (some people point out that the I tag is semantically dead, and for some reason prefer convoluted SPAN constructions–I never understood that). When you wrap one of those tags around a chunk of text, you're really not adding any information that a mythical structure-sensitive UA should try to extract. When you wrap something in table tags, you are. If it is reasonable to consider rearranging the contents of the DIVs/TDs, hiding some of them for the print version, or treating them differently in a spoken/braille/lynx edition, then it's presentational markup–it's not a table in structural terms, and the side-by-side appearance has visual value only. Visual != structural. I can imagine this mythical UA responding to requests like "read me all the cells in row A. Ok, now in column B. Now sort-increasing based on column C. Now sum up rows 1-4 of column D" This would be nonsensical in a layout table.
I respect the argument that tables can be used for pragmatic reasons, but I wouldn't try to justify it by saying there's some nebulous, inherently tabular quality to the layout when you do that.
Funny how you started with a personal blog Dave, and now you have so much pull on the net. It would be interesting to see if you would write an artical on how the use of 'tables is a must' and switch your home page to tables, how many web developers all over the world would lose sleep.
I think at this point in the game we are in transition and table sites are still acceptable. But soon clients will start saying: 'Why is my competitors site viewable on my pda and not mine'. The internet is growing so fast that in my experience if you miss the boat it just gets more difficult to jump back on.
I think it's good to push but if someone doesn't want to be pushed, let them be, there's too many people on the boat anyways. :)
After all it's not that difficult, table = tabular data.
And if you remember html was difficult at first and it's still a pain to validate.
Andy Budd has some nice commentary in "An Objective Look at Table-Based vs. CSS-Based Design":
"I think most people would agree that CSS development has a much higher barrier to entry than table based design. In an odd way, I think this is one reason why CSS based design is becoming so 'popular' amongst web professionals. It allows them to differentiate themselves from the amateur 'FrontPage Cowboys' and take back the web for themselves. Perhaps this is why many people see web standards as 'Ivory Tower' and why many web standards advocates come across as having a sense of superiority and a zealous attitude towards web design."
A couple years ago, I heard tabular data described as data that still makes sense when its rows are made columns and columns made rows. I don't remember the source for this idea, probably a member or link from the css-discuss list. I wish I did, because it made a lot of sense to me and has guided how I think semantically about tables and use them in marking up content.
As a special case, the data in a table with a single row and multiple cells will read the same whether read row by row or column by column. The same is true for a table of a single column. So as long as an author is OK with having an immutable order dictated for his/her content, a single row/column table should be semantically OK for marking up a series of data points / cells / sections.
This perspective is attractive to me because it's an argument based on semantics for the light use of tables in marking up "non-tabular data". I can appreciate the "just gotta get the job done" approach, but I rest just a bit easier when I have a justification based on semantic reasoning.
There are good reasons and bad reasons to choose tables over divs for a layout. One of the bad reasons is because one is lazy. A good reason is to save time and make the money and sparying your client the pain a new webmaster could cause.
what have i learned??
a) it is hard to design a pure css compliant site that works for all browsers on all platforms.
b) sometimes one has to use tables to make the deadline and to make it easy for the cleint to update/maintain their site.
and all this because there is not one standard at the browser level.
and why has no-one has developed a markup-tool that is css savy, that uses a wysiwyg interface that validates, and that is proofed to work on all browsers. i.e. a pagemaker-like tool for web-layout that can export to a pdf like standard; in this case PURE CSS.
once we have this tool then life will be easier.
in the meantime throw some css on the table, and fill your glass with some good vino and smell the roses.
Although I don't think it's a crime to use table for presentation, there is two good reason why I'm still trying to build website with only CSS.
1 - Printing a table base design even with a print CSS is somewhat of a hit or miss.
2 - CSS are simply more flexible.
I still think it's pretty easy to build a pure CSS site even for Explorer 5. It's not for every design and it can go pretty wrong but it's possible and when you've been going it a while you don't really see the difference between table and CSS positioning. I actually had more bugs and weird behaviour in the mixed table/css design that I've just completed than in straight CSS positioning.
I couldn't agree more; I recently had to develop a site where the customer wanted rounded corners… even CSS2 can't manage this in a semantically-correct way without aid from javascript.
Your article starts out by discussing the practical side of www authoring. It's reasonable to argue that a simple table layout is easier to implement than css. Although you don't explain why, I can imagine my own reasons. For the layperson – and most webmasters are laypeople in terms of www technologies – tables are easy to understand because they give the author a grid with which to lay out the page. More importantly, they provide web authoring software an easier means of offering a wysiwyg mode to users.
What noone seems to have mentioned here is the lack of support for css tables. That would have allowed for semantic html with separation of content and layout, and still provided the ability to use a program to drag boxes around the screen. Pity MSIE/Win does not support css tablelike presentation, then.
After writing quite a bit about practical issues, you then veer off course with this nonsense:
if tabular data is structurally tabular, then what inherently…makes a two- or three-column layout structurally non-tabular? Two columns invariably end up in a pair of
s, or a pair of s. What makes the former structural, but the latter any less so?
It's hard to imagine how anyone writing seriously about markup could get so confused. Using two  elements in the same
 says that the content of the  elements has some data relationship. Using css to place two
 elements side by side does not.
Consider a catalog with product name in one column, catalog number in another, and price in a third. Those aren't in  elements because they look nice that way. They are logically connected, and must be presented to users for them to make any sense of the data.
It may be true that css is too hard, especially for novices, but no amount mental gymnastics will convince me that tables were meant for layout, any more than blockquote was made for indenting text. The only reason noone argues for the return of misusing blockquote for layout is that indenting text with css is easy. By contrast, replacing table layout with css floats/positioning is hard.
If you want unbelievably complex yet sickeningly-correct table markup (adding a full 27K to page weight):
Great content on the site.
I couldn't agree more with your previous post.
I learned web design via notepad & tables (3column, box layouts) till just recently I discovered something they call CSS-P ;) Now before this point I had only known css as an inline stylesheet for creating textual formating for html documents. Currently i live by compliant xhtml/css "separate content from style", w3c.org and upgraded to homesite+ ;) tried wysiwyg dreamweaver but felt more productive hand coding. I find CSS very versitile for layouts. And tables are good only when needed.
I found your site through ala and it had a good vibe so i visit often. Great content, keep up the good work.
I agree!
What's the point spending hours on something using divs and CSS positioning (which is buggy and inconsistent in browsers) when the same thing could be done with a simple table?!?
Tables have there uses, and I use them when they are the better option. I don't care what people think of it.
Let me go off on a tangent, just to counter this:
"Then again, the whole XaML thing could be a threat to the very fabric of the www."
Bullshit. It could, but it won't be. PDF *could* be a threat to text files / HTML docs, AppleScript *could* be a threat to JavaScript. There's not a strong enough momentum in it for replacing HTML even for the developers; for them, it's just a good new way of writing forms.
Yes, I'm fully aware it can be used to create PDF-ish documents and that it's (reportedly) being used to create new developer documentation. So's POD for Perl documentation, and JavaDoc for Java documentation, by the way; I don't see any takeover claims here. No, it won't replace 12 years and thousands of GBs of prior art.
I have a perfect example of using CSS to make tables a desireable method for layout.
Its nothing fabulous, but it works. I enabled my client to use contribute 2 to update it. (Contribute doesn't parse advanced CSS techniques, its a shame, but such is life).
I actually spent hours upon hours repurposing all the CSS to more fitting for tables. Sucked, but thats production.
I agree that in some cases it makes more sense to use a table than it does pure CSS. 99% of those cases are an attempt to foil CSS browser bugs, especially IE.
But I think you've done us all a disservice here, Dave. I think we all use tables now and again in places we shouldn't. It's our dirty little secret. But now that you've brought that out in the open and basically given it a blessing, those who don't understand CSS can use it as a license to keep on writing bad markup.
I received an email today from a co-worker who still thinks FrontPage is a good idea. He suggested that "See – it IS ok to use tables," and pointed to your article as evidence. Of course he didn't read the whole thing. In fact he probably didn't read any of it, the title probably came through on his newsreader. But that was all the evidence he needed to know that CSS wasn't necessary.
Two steps forward, now one step back.
Well, are there any good tutorials telling me how to make a good 'complex' layout through CSS? I've been using CSS for a long time, but I've mainly been using tables for my layouts.
Then I thought, if there's a way I can get a simple change to appear on every page, it's through a CSS layout!!
But all I've found in tutorial form is the simple 2/3/4 column layout. I'm designing something more complex: a navigation column, and a main content column, within which is a further column for highlights.
Thanks for defending those of us who may be a little behind the CSS-wagon. I've been frantically trying to become an expert for the last few days, hoping for my latest dynamic web site assignment to be functionally, structurally, and syntactically immaculate. Needless to say, I've become a bit frustrated.
I was debating whether making SOME changes in the already finished portions of the site(but not enough to validate or meet recommendations) would be worth my time. Your post reminds me that this won't be my last project. Most importantly, each will be closer than the last to that goal of immaculate design.
Thanks for your support!


text:
Thinking of getting married? Get out your wallet.
The average cost of a wedding is as high as $28,400 by one estimate, and close to $26,000 by another. After plummeting in the wake of the financial crisis, spending on nuptials resumed its rise in 2010, and is once again approaching the record set before the financial crisis.
"In today's environment, the bride and groom are paying more of the cost. When the economy was different, that's why you saw it go down," said Shane McMurray, president and chief executive of theweddingreport.com. Now "they're willing to spend a little more."
The substantial spending on weddings comes as consumers are generally regaining confidence, so in that sense it is just part of a larger trend. But the increase has also been abetted by the companies that sell wedding accoutrements, from gowns to ring pillows, for the big day.
(Read more: These Four Companies LOVE Wedding Season)

subset: commoncrawl


text:
At Magneto Guitars we believe that a superior instrument will create better connection to your musical sensitivity. A great guitar design is reached once aesthetics, functionality and tone come together, but great design is nothing without perfect execution in construction. In other words, we place equal importance on what lies beneath the surface.
Each Magneto instrument is handmade by experienced luthiers using the highest-grade materials under very strict controls on quality and integrity of build. Magneto guitars are made for artists; arts shall speak the truth.
- Every guitar is custom handmade by experienced luthiers - We guarantee, control and tell the origin of every component we use
- We use specially selected and seasoned North American body and neck tonewoods - Custom pickups specifically wound for each guitar model
- Custom bridges made by Gotoh using cold rolled steel or brass materials - Oiled cow bone nuts
- Quick-Set truss rod system - CRL switches, CTS pots, Switchcraft output jacks
- Hand rubbed nitrocellulose body and neck finishes - Fully shielded pickup cavities and pickguards
- Original Magneto designs - Limited lifetime warranty to the original owner
(c) 2018 MAGNETO GUITARS. All rights reserved.


text:
Weekend Baking Project: Homemade Mallomar Bars
Get the Recipe
This year marks the 100th anniversary of Mallomars. 100 years? You don't get to be that old if you're not awesome.
And awesome they are: each cookie contains a circle of graham cracker topped with fluffy marshmallow and enrobed in dark chocolate. We could eat them every day. Unfortunately they're only produced in the winter, so for the warm months ahead, here's a DIY take. (Plus no baking is required, so they'll be great for those times when you can't stand to turn on your oven.)
Get the Recipe
This post may contain links to Amazon or other partners; your purchases via these links can benefit Serious Eats. Read more about our affiliate linking policy.


text:
VIDEO: It's not a question of animals or people
As A Shawl to Die For, a documentary on Vimeo, amply shows, it's possible to conserve wildlife while also helping local communities preserve their livelihoods.
Tibetan antelopes, or Chiru, roam free only on the Plateau of Tibet, Province of China, and partly into
A Shawl To Die For traces the ancient craft of Shahtoosh weaving in Kashmir, India and traces its links to the Tibetan Antelope or Chiru found on the Chang Tang plateau in China. It establishes that Shahtoosh is, in fact the fleece of the Chiru, which is killed to extract this fibre. The international ban on Shahtoosh was critical for the survival of the endangered Chiru, but it also but it also spelt disaster for thousands of traditional Shahtoosh workers in Kashmir. The film explores this grim struggle between conservation and livelihood.
It also documents the interventions brought in by a community project initiated by Wildlife Trust of India and International Fund for Animal Welfare, supported by the British High Commission. The solutions thrown up by this project have been steadily implemented and the challenge now is to ensure and measure its growth and success.
Ladakh, a small area of India. The Chiru's wool is prized for making Shahtoosh shawls, considered among the finest in the world. These shawls have been known to sell for as much as US$17,600 in the international market.
The problem is that it takes the slaughter of three to five Chiru for every 150 grams of wool and thousands of these animals were being slaughtered at single time. In 2002, helped along by the urging of IFAW and the Wildlife Trust of India, the trade in Chiru pelts was banned. Today, the endangered species is on Appendix 1 of CITES, which prohibits the international trade of the valuable shawls.
The ban was beneficial for the Chiru, but detrimental to the Shahtoosh weavers whose livelihood depended on the making of the shawls. Hardest hit were women whose husbands were lost to conflict in the region.
IFAW and WTI sought an alternative for the displaced workers, offering shawls made from Pashmina wool, which is taken from mountain goats that are farm raised. The finest Pashmina wool is almost as fine as Shahtoosh wool and its production is almost identical to that of Shahtoosh.
IFAW and WTI helped workers make the transition to weaving Pashmina, for example, suggesting ways to brand and market their products. The transition to Shahtoosh weaving is still undergoing, but the displaced workers are earning a livelihood.
Here is a case where the IFAW motto, 'a better world for animals and people,' is truly personified" says WTI's Aniruddha Mookerjee in the documentary. "The law is strongly enforced and there is a very good alternative livelihood available."


text:
My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic draws on everything from the musicals of Stephen Sondheim to Lord of the Rings. But is their a classic philosophical touch to the social structure of pony-filled land of Equestria? An essay on the aptly titled site Overthinking It examines the parallels between Equestria and Kallipolis, the titular utopia of Plato's Republic.
The author, who is referred to as Starswirl the Goateed (apparently the hipster version of Twilight Sparkle's favorite magical pioneer), connects the three pony types (Earth ponies, Pegasus ponies, and Unicorn ponies) to the three classes Plato envisions for Kallipolis: the producing class, the civil service and military class, and the ruling class:
To keep people happy with their place in society, Plato argued for the promotion of the "Myth of the Metals", the claim that citizens are somewhat literally born from the earth of their nation. By supporting their nation, they are thus supporting their family. People are imbued with an essence of metal, which determines their social status in society. Each citizen must follow, for the sake of their country, the role in life determined by this metal; those with iron or bronze souls are predestined to work in the producing classes, while those of silver and gold will make up the Auxiliaries and Guardians. This is an example of a "Noble Lie", a fictional myth portrayed as fact to encourage moral behavior.
In Equestria, ponies are divided into three "classes", which are also loosely hereditary: The Earth Ponies, Pegasi, and Unicorns. The episode "Baby Cakes", showing an earth pony couple giving birth to one Pegasus and one Unicorn, suggests that there can be change between generations, but the surprised reaction of the Mane 6 suggests that this is unusual. Earth ponies act as the producing class; Applejack the farmer and Pinkie Pie the baker both fit into this role of producing goods. With the exception of air shows and magic acts, Earth ponies also dominate the entertainment industry as the producers do in Kallipolis; the quartet that plays at the Grand Galloping Gala is entirely Earth pony, as is the entertainer Sapphire Shores.
Continuing with this model, Pegasi are equivalent to the Auxiliaries. Both are militaristic (although there is no standing army in modern Equestria, early Equestrian history referenced in "Hearth's Warming Eve" depicts this side of the Pegasi), seek glory, and have great athletic abilities. Despite the absence of an army, the Pegasi still aid the rulers by occupying lesser government positions or providing public goods services: Controlling the weather, providing short notice security against threats in the case of the Wonderbolts, and controlling the common mail service. Rainbow Dash is a clear embodiment of the ideal Pegasus, especially after she takes up literary interests in "Read it and Weep". Perhaps overly arrogant, she remains friendly with her allies, pugilistic with her enemies, and loyal to Celestia.
Read the entire essay to see how the author fits unicorns into Plato's social structure, as well as the similarities between myth and literature in My Little Pony and Plato's ideals, and how "Hearth's Warming Eve" connects to the Allegory of the Cave.
My Little Republic: Plato is Magic [Overthinking It via Neatorama]


text:
CHARLOTTE, N.C. – Three Cobra men's cross country runners ran sub 30 minute times, while leading Coker to an 11th place finish at the 2010 Royals Cross Country Challenge at McAlpine Park in Charlotte, N.C. on Friday afternoon.
Austin McJunkins (Walhalla, S.C.) (29:30), Quinn Wegener (Sumter, S.C.) (29:44) and Joel Bristol (Palm Bay, Fla.) (29:45) ran their best times of the season during the 8k event. Britian Tomlinson (Rock Hill, S.C.) and Thad Sulek (Hilton Head, S.C.) also had exceptional runs, finishing at 30:10 and 31:53 respectively.
In the women's 5k race, Kendyl Seawright (Manalapan, N.J.) placed eighth with a time of 20:07, while Alex Ochoa (Pamplico, S.C.) finished at 22:18. Caitlyn Driscoll (Grand Island, N.Y.) came in at 22:28 and Aliese Gregory (Aiken, S.C.) and Ashley Meador (Union, S.C.) finished at 23:12 and 23:30 respectively.
As a team the Cobra women finished 10th in the event.
The Cobras will now prepare for one of their biggest meets of the season, the 2010 Conference Carolinas Championship. Luckily for Coker they will not be running a course they do not know; the 2010 championship will be held at McAlpine Park in Charlotte, N.C. on Saturday, November 6.


text:
"I will not tell you who's going to win the presidential race. I will not tell you because I don't know." Speaking at the 73rd annual Delta Council meeting, Delta State University, Cleveland, Miss., keynote speaker Stu Rothenberg detailed perceptions of a broken Washington, D.C., doled out blame on both sides of the political aisle, and used the farm bill to highlight Congress' ineptitude.
Rothenberg, a highly credentialed political analyst, has served as an analyst on ABC, CBS, NBC, and CNN. He often contributes editorials to the New York Times, Wall Street Journal, and Washington Post.
As he gave the meeting's main address, Rothenberg noted that the political mood in the Delta remains closely in line with the rest of the country. "The national political environment is one that's probably not so different from down here in Mississippi. Most Americans are dissatisfied with the direction of the country. They're dissatisfied with our politicians, dissatisfied with our political institutions, and they don't like a lot of the news they're reading and watching. They think something is amiss."
Rothenberg emphasized that he expects the presidential race between Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) and Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) to be highly competitive, and ultimately very close. "This is going to be an election to watch. We could be at a turning point in American politics."
Following his initial address, Rothenberg commented on the farm bill, describing how it served to highlight the perception of political incompetence at all levels.
"Sure, everybody was surprised by how long it's taken to get the farm bill. I mean it can be a contentious process. Obviously, it involves negotiations among a number of political leaders and constituency groups. It was ridiculous for it to go this long. And you can see, right here at the end of the game, it turned out to be incredibly complicated. It's been a very difficult process.
"Well, I think this adds to the sense of frustration that nothing can get done — that Washington is broken. Even a bill that is a must-pass, this is not some optional bill — even that Congress can screw up. That feeds the impression not just that Congress is broken, but that Washington is broken."


text: amjad ali wrote: > Hello All, > I am developing my parallel CFD code on a small cluster. My system has > openmpi installed based on gfortran compiler. Please guide me > follwing: > > (1) Which debugger would be easy and effective to use for above? Hi Amjad MPI generally makes debugging much harder. If you want to use a GUI type debugger, I am only aware of commercial debuggers for MPI. This includes the Allinea DDT tool, and the TotalView Debugger. You can always use gdb, though this is (unfortunately) quite hard with MPI. The ddd debugger interfaces with gdb, and while good itself as a GUI, it doesn't quite understand MPI. > (2) Which of the folliwng two ways of using arrays is more efficient > with respect to memory and function-call-overheads or other overheads: > (i) We should keep the arrays ALLOCATABLE and then > before return from the subroutines, DEALLOCATE the local arrays. > or (ii) We should keep the local arrays fix-sized as > much as we can. (Will the memory is deallaocated/freed automatically > on return from the subroutine?). Hmm.... I would generally advise avoiding allocations (creating/destroying arrays) in "inner loops" or more than a few times on each thread/rank. Fixed sized arrays are ... dinosaurs from the 1960's fortran. You have allocatable, you can (and should) use it. Just don't overuse it (by creating and destroying arrays millions of times in inner loops) > > Thanks. > with best regards, > Amjad Ali. > _______________________________________________ > Beowulf mailing list, Beowulf at beowulf.org > To change your subscription (digest mode or unsubscribe) visit http://www.beowulf.org/mailman/listinfo/beowulf -- Joseph Landman, Ph.D Founder and CEO Scalable Informatics LLC, email: landman at scalableinformatics.com web : http://www.scalableinformatics.com http://jackrabbit.scalableinformatics.com phone: +1 734 786 8423 x121 fax : +1 866 888 3112 cell : +1 734 612 4615


text:
The Emergence of Legal Christian Publishing in China
This article first appeared in the January 2011 issue of The Banner of Truth Magazine. Reprinted here by permission.
One of the more remarkable facts about the history of the church is that some of its most significant events were barely noticed at the time of their occurrence. Examples are not hard to find. In the early church, for instance, the attention of the most powerful inhabitants of the Roman Empire was focused on the political and military accomplishments of their day and they gave scant attention to the persecuted band of men called "apostles." Yet two thousand years later it is clear that, by the grace of God, those twelve men had a far more powerful impact than anything the Roman Empire ever accomplished. Again, during the last eight years of Jonathan Edward's life (1750–58), after he had been expelled from his church by a congregational vote, he labored in Stockbridge, Massachusetts, which at the time was a lonely Indian outpost on the western frontier. Yet it was in Stockbridge that Edwards wrote some of the most important works in the history of the church. Yet again, the most remarkable preacher of the Victorian era, Charles Haddon Spurgeon (1834–92), was converted in 1850, on a snowy morning, in a small Primitive Methodist chapel with only a handful of people in attendance. To this day, only God knows the name of the man who preached that bleak Sunday morning.
It was from these seemingly small, insignificant events that God worked good in mighty ways for untold millions in the generations to come. This should not surprise us. Did not Jesus say that the Kingdom of God starts out small—like a mustard seed—and over time becomes a tree of great and lasting significance (Luke 13:18–19)?
Recently, another event has occurred that has gone almost completely unnoticed within the Christian community but has the potential of becoming a major milestone in the history of the church. About the year 2003 it became possible to legally publish some forms of Christian literature in the People's Republic of China. Ten years ago, legal Christian publishing was barely on the radar screen, but today the situation is far different. The demographic and publishing statistics are staggering:
- In the year 1800, 90% of the Christians in the world lived in North America and Europe. Today, about 60% of Christians live in the so-called "two-thirds world" (Africa, Asia, the Middle East). However, Christian publishing in general, and Reformed publishing in particular, has made a weak transition at best to these new regions. The center of gravity for Reformed publishing is still the English-speaking world.
- The church in China is 80 to 100 million in size and continues to grow at a rapid rate.
- China's adult literacy rate, between 2003 and 2008, is reckoned to stand at 93%.
- There are 167,000 bookstores in China.
- 6.3 billion domestically-published books were sold in China in 2007.
- On average, the Chinese read 5 books a year and 1.7 magazines and 7.4 newspapers per month.
- Over the past ten years, more than 200 Christian bookstores have opened throughout China.
- Currently, the total number of Christian books in legal circulation in China is approximately 600, using a broad definition of "Christian." About 50 to 60 new titles are being added each year.
- Of that 600, only about 25 or 30 have a Reformed theme.
- Many of the 600 titles now in print were published by one of the nine China-based Christian publishers that have emerged in the past ten years.
Yet, as amazing as these developments are, they have gone largely unnoticed in the Christian community around the world! Often, the general perception is that Christian publishing of any sort inside China is impossible and thus it is still necessary to smuggle Bibles and Christian literature into the country. The reality, however, is that the situation today with regard to publishing is far different from even just ten years ago. To be sure, the door is not completely open and significant challenges do remain, but remarkable things can be done by working with the Chinese publishing houses.
It needs to be understood that books with foreign ISBN numbers cannot be published or distributed legally in China. However, a book with a Beijing issued International Standard Book Number (ISBN) can be sold to anyone, anywhere, in any quantity in China, without any fear of official reprisal. While this movement is still small in size, thirty or forty years down the road it has the potential of being a major milestone in the history of the church. We now have the opportunity to provide legal Christian resources in significant numbers to what may be the largest and fastest growing church in the world, but a church that currently exists in one of the biggest Christian literature publishing vacuums in the world.
These changes have enormous implications for the future of the church in China and around the world. What would happen if an additional two or three hundred Reformed titles were added to the six hundred legally published books now in print? Adding this many titles would increase the total number of Christian books in print by approximately 33% to 50%.
A longstanding point of frustration within the church in China is the lack of quality Christian resources. Pastors, lay leaders, seminary teachers and students, and foreign missionaries have few books for evangelistic or discipleship purposes. One of the consequences is that the church tends to be "a mile wide and one inch deep," leading to a theologically illiterate church plagued with heresies and immature believers. However, now it is possible to introduce God-honoring books in China that will provide valuable tools for local believers. Church history has shown that God-glorifying church growth often walks hand-in-hand with robust Christian publishing (think of the invention of the printing press and its influence on the Protestant Reformation).
Most amazing of all is that in comparison with traditional evangelical publishers, Reformed publishers have a significant advantage when publishing in China. Currently, the Chinese publishing houses—all under government oversight—tend to give approval more frequently to certain genres of Christian books than to others. The books most often approved are biographies, old books with historical value (Pilgrim's Progress, Institutes of the Christian Religion, e.g.), and marriage and family books. The Reformed community will immediately see the significance of this. How many biographies and old historical books does the Banner of Truth have? How many does the Evangelical Press have? For the past thirty to forty years, Reformed publishers have been publishing these books in great numbers which gives them a very unique advantage in filling the publishing vacuum in China. We can be certain that the vacuum will be filled with something. The key question is: What will fill that vacuum? The cults are not without presence in China.
Over the past two to three years, several Reformed publishing companies have become aware of this opportunity and a few have been exploring various publishing options. Two have taken specific steps to legally publish their books. The most notable example is the Banner of Truth. In 2009, Banner signed a multi-book publishing contract to translate and publish their books in China. The biggest challenge for the Truth and the other companies is a lack of funding. While the authors are not privy to the financial details of each company it is clear that their financial resources are very limited. One of the authors has personally approached several Reformed publishers on more than one occasion and when they were informed of the opportunity in China this author repeatedly received the same reply: "We love what is going on in China. We want to be involved but we just do not have the money." The result is that the number of contracts signed and the number of books entering circulation is occurring at a snail's pace. At the same time, other evangelical publishers, some with significant financial resources from the sale of top-selling fiction and self-help titles, have been able to move ahead far more rapidly in China. In fact, they have been the main driving force behind the formation of the initial foundation of Christian publishing in China. This explains why, of the approximately six hundred titles now in circulation, only about twenty-five or thirty are Reformed.
The good news is that several publishers, such as Banner of Truth, Evangelical Press, and Solid Ground Christian Books each have at least 25 books that will likely pass government censorship in China (i.e. receive a Beijing issued ISBN). Other publishers such as Reformation Heritage Books, Shepherd Press, Inter Varsity Press (UK), P&R, and others, all have titles that will also likely pass censorship. Publishing contracts for these books could be signed tomorrow if funding were available.
For approximately $1 million USD, fifty to sixty Reformed titles can be translated and published in China. To some, this might sound like a very large amount of money, but when compared to what US churches are spending on building and renovation projects, this is actually a very modest figure. According to the U. S. Census Bureau: "Churches in the United States spent about $7 billion on church buildings in 2009." One to two million dollar building projects are quite common. However, which is more strategic for the fulfillment of the Great Commission and the strengthening of the church worldwide: spending $1 million dollars building a new church gymnasium or Sunday School wing? Or, using that same million dollars to publish fifty to sixty books in a region that has one of the largest and fastest growing churches in the world, that exists in one of the biggest publishing vacuums of Christian books in the world?
The need of the hour is for men and women in the Reformed community to think globally, to think critically and make ministry and financial decisions in light of Scripture and the rapidly changing needs of the church worldwide. Christian publishing in China is still very much in its infancy and publishing quality titles now, while the number of legally published books is still quite low, can have an enormous impact on the future direction of the Chinese church. However, if we sit still and do nothing, the non-Reformed titles—which now largely define the market—will continue to shape the future of the church in China. What direction Christian publishing in China ultimately takes remains to be seen. Either way, we can be sure that it will have a decisive impact of some sort in the days to come.
Happily, concerned Christians around the world can get involved. In the past year, a new opportunity has emerged to help fill the publishing vacuum in China (which has 501(c)3 tax exempt status in the US): The Robert Morrison Project. Established in 2009, the Robert Morrison Project specifically aims to legally publish Reformed literature in China. Over the next five to ten years their goal is to publish 50 titles in China and the first 22 are all from the Banner of Truth Trust. Individuals and churches may sponsor the publication of specific titles. To learn more about this opportunity please visit their website or contact them by email.


text:
Leadership in the Modern Presidency
Fred I. Greenstein
Harvard University Press, 1988 - Political Science - 430 pages
Nine eminent political scientists and historians here present their assessments of the leadership styles and organizational talents of presidents from Franklin D. Roosevelt through Ronald Reagan. Their insights and anecdotes provide an unprecedented opportunity to observe the presidency within historical context.
What people are saying - Write a review
Leadership in the modern presidencyUser Review - Not Available - Book Verdict
Despite the limitations of examining the presidency from a single characteristic, leadership remains the most popular model for evaluating presidential performance. In this book, edited by a Princeton ... Read full review
Toward a Modern Presidency
Insecurity and Responsibility
10 other sections not shown
Other editions - View all
Common terms and phrases
achieve actions administration advisers agencies aides became budget cabinet campaign Carter chap chief of staff civil rights Congress congressional Council crisis Cuban Missile Crisis David Deal decision Defense Democratic Department domestic policy economic policy Eisenhower Eisenhower's election executive branch FDR's federal Ford Ford's foreign policy Franklin Franklin D Franklin Roosevelt H. R. Haldeman Henry Kissinger Ibid initiatives institution interview with author issues Jimmy Carter John Johnson Kennedy Library Kennedy's Kissinger leader legislative Lyndon Lyndon Johnson major meetings military modern presidency moral national security Nixon party percent policy-making political pres presidential leadership presidential power press conferences problems Reagan reform reorganization Republican responsibility rhetoric Richard Richard Nixon Robert role Ronald Reagan Roosevelt Rostow SALT II Schlesinger secretary Senate Soviet speech style success television Truman University Press Vietnam Walt Rostow Washington Watergate welfare White House White House staff York
References to this book
All Book Search results »
LBJ and the Polls
Bruce E. Altschuler
No preview available - 1990


text:
Monday, August 15, 2011
We'll miss you
You might be surprised to learn that this will be our farewell post. (The picture above is us blowing you a goodbye kiss.)
Oh my darling friends,
It's difficult to know what to say when there are so many thoughts and feelings running through your mind and heart. Just as early 2009 brought about multiple conversations between Emily and me, discussing the possibility of a joint blog, 2011 ushered in a constant dialog about saying adios. We have felt it coming on, and now we just know it's time.
It is with a great, big, gasping sigh that we do it.
Partly a sigh of relief (because we have really worked hard to make this an interesting, inspiring place to visit).
And partly a sigh of sadness and tenderness. I have loved Bloom so much. I have loved the beauty of it (thanks to Emily Yates). I have loved the many guest posts. I have loved the Friday Forums, the giveaways, the photo contests, the home tours, the Christmas decor shares. I have loved the chance to write my feelings about being a mother.
Most of all, I have loved being here with you. You have supported us, shared our words with your friends, sent us tender emails of gratitude, and contributed to fascinating, important discussions. I felt a sense of community here--I have felt so connected to you, and I am really going to miss that.
Why say goodbye?
About a million reasons. Essentially--it's time. I told my husband, Taylor: "When I first became a mom, and felt so lost and out of place, blogs really helped me grow. I read blogs by women who made mothering look fun and beautiful. I started writing on my own blog and it helped me see my life through a new lens. I wanted to make that kind of my life for myself and my family. Bloom has helped me do that. But, whereas blogging used to propel me forward, it is now holding me back. There are so many things I want to do and make and feel with my children, and being tied to the cyber world doesn't make me feel free to do those things."
I feel a great need in my life to settle down, and to slow the pace of our life as much as possible. And to give my boys more quality time and attention. It looks like this: less cupcakes while the boys are neglected; more hiking and swimming as a family. less blogging while the boys run amok; more reading, painting, gardening, and baking bread together.
If you want to keep in touch, feel free to follow my personal blog, Anne with an 'e.' I will try to update it at least once a week.
I love you, dear friends. Thank you so much for being here and loving us.
Well, goodness sakes. I'm no stranger to writer's block, but tonight it feels especially thick. Part of me feels like I owe some sort of explanation for this goodbye and part of me feels like I have nothing to explain. The short of it is that my real life, the one with a pulse (4 actually) and noise and laughter and conversation and mess - it needs the part of me that I have been giving to Bloom for the past 2 years.
The other day Lily and I were deadheading flowers in the garden. "Why are we cutting the flowers off, mom?" she asked with concern stamped on her forehead. "'Cause flowers die. And the plant needs to use its energy to grow new flowers instead of trying to nurture the dead ones." She seemed satisfied with that answer and she was quiet for a few moments and then said, "So flowers just bloom and die, bloom and die?" "Yep," I answered, "that's what they do."
I see the same cycle in my own life - ideas and trends that bloom and are beautiful for a time. I learn and grow through them and love them for a season. And then they wilt and wither and whatever little energy they required seems too much.
That's how Bloom has come to feel (our blog is so aptly named for this metaphor, isn't it?!) There are new blossoms to nurture. Banjo lessons, perhaps?
And since moving to Oregon I feel like we are living the life we imagined (or making a mighty effort thereunto). There is much of hiking, and berry picking, and baking, and gathering with family and friends, and swimming and gardening and watching the sun set. And the more deeply I embed myself in the beauties of real life, the more the flashing pixels of the internets dim and dull. And the only thing I really care to do at my computer is upload the pictures and catch up on my little personal blog to preserve the indescribable goodness of this chapter of life. And lest you think otherwise, let me assure you that yes, there are hard things, too. Loved ones who are very afflicted. Personal disappointments that feel like they might swallow me up some days. Chores aplenty in a house that is never as clean as I'd like it to be and a yard that is similarly average. And these things need tending to also.
{disclaimer: i think blogging is great and helpful and awesome. i'm not throwing it under the bus or swearing it off by any means. i'm just feeling like it needs to take a different shape and place in my life.}
Bloom and die, bloom and die. A season for every purpose. Everything in its time.
Thanks for being here and listening to our thoughts and commenting on our forums and making this a safe and loving place to share our hearts (and our parties and our projects and our favorite songs).
Much love,
50 comments:
- Rachael said...
Oh ladies, I am so sad to see this! But at the same time, relieved on your behalf. :-) It's funny because yesterday I was thinking about how blogging has become another to-do list item for me, one that I stress about and feel guilty about instead of looking forward to, and I thought, "How on earth are Anne and Emily keeping Bloom going? I wouldn't be surprised if they gracefully retired one of these days." And then I opened up my Google Reader and there you were.
So ladies, thank you. Bloom has been a lovely darling space, and I hope you'll keep the archives up, but I think you are making a wise choice in letting it go now that it has served its purpose in your lives. Your families are lucky to have you. :-)
- August 16, 2011 at 4:31 AM
- Alicia said...
While I am super sad, I also completely understanding. I decided blogging had to go last year when my time was already so limited with my kids. Something had to go. It was a relief to not have to worry about it anymore. I will miss your forums and conversations about life. But I am excited for your new adventure!
Good luck!
- August 16, 2011 at 5:59 AM
- Danielle said...
Oh you girls both look so beautiful in this photo! I am sad to see Bloom go...but I totally get it;) Thanks for letting me be a little part of it at times.
- August 16, 2011 at 6:17 AM
- Jonesy said...
This is exactly the way I've felt about a business I began a couple of years ago. At first, it was exciting and validating and challenging, and everything I thought was missing in my life. It gradually became more burden than anything, and I've come to believe that the Lord lets us take on adventures like this to help us grow, but also so that WE can figure out where we really need and want to be--which generally has nothing to do with our venture and everything to do with our families.
Thanks for giving us the venue to meet and to share ideas and to become a little better because of you and everyone who contributed. Now go pack a picnic and take your kids to the pool. :)
- August 16, 2011 at 7:27 AM
- jeanine said...
Oh I'm so sad to see you go! I totally understand though! Bloom has been such a lovely space to visit.
- August 16, 2011 at 7:29 AM
- Honey said...
Thank you, ladies! It's been a wonderful ride :) Much love and happiness to you!
- August 16, 2011 at 7:29 AM
- Matt and Joanna said...
I have thoroughly enjoyed reading your inspiring posts and will miss visiting your blog. I do think it's great that you will get to spend more time with your darling babies. Good luck & thanks again for sharing your lives with all of us!
- August 16, 2011 at 7:42 AM
- chris said...
Thank you, both. First, for the courage to begin this dialogue. Second, for the courage to end it. It's part of the ebb and flow of life. Thank you for introducing me to great women, for being a source of introspection, and letting me contribute too. xoxo
- August 16, 2011 at 7:44 AM
- Andrea said...
It's funny, because I've been cutting back on the list of blogs I check regularly, trying to limit the amount of time I spend in front of the computer. As much as I have loved this blog, I think you'll understand what I mean when I say that it's almost a relief to have one less blog to feel drawn to:).
I'll miss the daily inspiration from this blog (because I truly have been inspired time and time again), but I completely get where you're both coming from. Your thoughts are a reflection of my own at this point in my life.
Have fun with those sweet families of yours!
- August 16, 2011 at 8:08 AM
- Pix said...
Oh boo! Totally understand but your words will be missed! Thanks for the inspiration.
- August 16, 2011 at 8:21 AM
- Vicky said...
I have so much respect for your decision! While I have enjoyed much about this blog I have to say "way to go!" for putting your families first.
- August 16, 2011 at 8:34 AM
- Kimberly said...
Thank you both so much, and best wishes to you as you press forward with your lives.
- August 16, 2011 at 9:20 AM
- rae said...
First Oprah and now Bloom?!!! What am i going to do with my life?!!!
I check three blogs regularly, and this was one of them, so naturally I am on the verge of tears to see it go, but I completely understand and support your reasoning. Good for you!
You will be missed, sincerely. It felt like a little community of 'my tribe' type of ladies, and I appreciated all the little things I took from it. Recipes, parenting tips, music, you name it: I found it at Bloom.
You've done a great thing and should close this chapter proudly!
- August 16, 2011 at 9:38 AM
- Jolena said...
It's been lovely following you! I imagine I'll hit this point at some time and I'll remember your decision and find the strength to let go of the blogosphere as well. Enjoy your families! I've loved all the inspiration here, but I'll just come back and look at the old posts every once in a while and be happy that they're still here.
- August 16, 2011 at 10:16 AM
- Mickie and Matt said...
Hey! I come back from a week of unplugging only to find out my favorite Bloom ladies are pulling the plugs, Forever!? I completely understand! I too have done some revamping in my life the last week and understand just how precious the time is with my kids and husband and where the blogging world should be on my list of priorities.
I will say I LOVED everything you did here and I love you both for it. Thanks for sharing your hearts and your minds with us, this blog made me a better wife and mother and helped me open my mind to other ideas and ways to do things that I never would have thought of previous. You both will be missed, hope to see you both around sometime in our family trips back to the home town.
Good luck and adieu.
- August 16, 2011 at 10:22 AM
- Abbie said...
Oh man! I'm so sad! You know how much I love Bloom. (btw, I'm hooking up with a couple of Bloomers while
I'm in Utah - fun!). You really have created a happy, real, safe, inspiring place on the interweb. Thank you for that and thank you for sharing with us and letting us share. You will be missed! But I get it. Em, your 'bloom and die' analogy was beautiful - so truly applies to many life endeavors. Love you ladies! (I will still be reading your personal blogs:))
- August 16, 2011 at 11:37 AM
- Lisa said...
You have done a beautiful job and we have loved it! I could never imagine keeping this up the way you both have done so well. Thank you for all the inspiration. :) love, Lisa
- August 16, 2011 at 12:22 PM
- Dani said...
I am so sad to see this wonderful blog go...but I also completely understand. Good luck to you both. Thanks for all of the wonderful inspiration you've given me.
- August 16, 2011 at 12:23 PM
- Miggy said...
Simplicity and more focus on the family is always a great decision. Good luck to both of you and who knows, maybe we'll cross paths again.
- August 16, 2011 at 12:40 PM
- Joan said...
What a perfect closing message to all of us Bloomers. We can't do it all, all the time--especially during the season of having young children in the home. I think so many of us want to "have it all" and "be everything to everyone" when really our focus should be in the home.
I am reminded of my mother's placard hanging in her kitchen that says, "Simplify." Thank you Anne and Emily for doing just that. Keeping your lives simple so you can savor the moment and enjoy the here and now with little ones who are growing up and away from us faster than we realize.
I love you both and smile at the thought of you cheerfully skipping down the street in utter relief that the Bloom chapter has closed (posting EVERY DAY is a FEAT!?!)
I am spoiled b/c I have you two in my life regardless of Bloom :) Hooray for family!
- August 16, 2011 at 12:58 PM
- Kiersti said...
Well, I'm just going to say thank you for all of the inspiring words and stories I've read on here. I can't tell you how many times I have cried reading something one of you has written, amazed at how it pertained to a trial in my life.
So thanks for the inspiration and sharing your lives and experiences :)
- August 16, 2011 at 1:13 PM
- JulieN said...
So sorry to see you go. This lovely blog balances out some of the garbage on the internet with wonderful & uplifting things. So I too must add my thanks for the great time and best wishes for you & your families going forward. God Bless & God Speed.
- August 16, 2011 at 1:33 PM
- Christina said...
I'm sad to see this chapter close for you just because I'm sad for myself, but I 100% support your reasons. You two are great examples, and I'm glad you've shared yourselves with the Bloom community. Thank you for letting us learn from you. Enjoy this next great phase- mothering blog-free!
- August 16, 2011 at 1:48 PM
- Heather said...
Oh I kinda want to cry! While it makes me really sad, I completely understand. I think it's so important to follow what we feel is best for us. Thank you so much for creating such a beautiful, positive, inspiring place to come to. I for one, am better for it. I really hope you will leave it up so that I can go back from time to time for different things. I am glad to know that I can still follow your personal blogs :)
- August 16, 2011 at 3:53 PM
- Lindy Louise said...
Like all of your other readers, I'm sad to see you go! But, I also completely understand. There have been times when I've thought that it must be so much work and care to keep this site going. Good for you for knowing when to say goodbye and for doing what you know is best for you and your families. Thank you for creating such a lovely space and I'll be sure to check in with you on your personal blogs:)
- August 16, 2011 at 6:41 PM
- Emily said...
Oh, how sad is this! I have loved your blog! I completely understand where you are coming from though- it's time to get off the computer and go play in the sprinklers! :) I hope you'll leave the blog up though so we can look back at the great articles you've posted! Thanks for all your hard work!!
- August 16, 2011 at 9:15 PM
- Barb @ getupandplay said...
Farewell! It was a beautiful experience to be a part of. :)
- August 16, 2011 at 10:54 PM
- Melissa said...
While BLOOM will be missed, everything has a season, and I'm sure everyone shares in the understanding that our lives change, seasons change, and we need to adjust and do what's best for ourselves and our families. You're both doing what's best for yourselves and your families; who can fault you for that? I have often wonder how busy young moms keep up their beautiful blogs and still raise their families? It causes me to look at myself and feel a little less than because I can't do the same (only for a minute though, because comparison never gets ya anywhere). I think if there is anything you've both been an example of, it's that making our families our priority comes first, even when there are many other GOOD things you could be doing. It's a great reminder. Thank you both for this great community. It has been wonderful. xoxo
- August 17, 2011 at 12:07 AM
- sarita said...
Even your farewell post was inspirational! Thank you both!
- August 17, 2011 at 5:36 AM
- sarah / book bound bindery said...
miss you. love you. best wishes.
- August 17, 2011 at 8:41 AM
- Shannon said...
Yes, this blog is truly a blog with substance and one I've clicked on in my google reader quicker than most. Maybe I'll take a cue from you and let my blog reading time take a back seat to more important things - not things- boys. I appreciate all I've learned from you and the blogging world will miss your wisdom. "Bloom and die," so well put. Best wishes to both of you!
- August 17, 2011 at 11:59 AM
- Laurel said...
This has been a wonderful place to come to feel inspired and uplifted. I appreciate your example to live the lives you dream. Best wishes to you both, and thank you for two years of encouragement. Here's to the moms!
- August 17, 2011 at 4:50 PM
- duck said...
Tear... You will be sorely missed :(
- August 17, 2011 at 9:16 PM
- Savannah said...
Thanks for all the fun ladies! I'm sad to see you go (for me) but happy to see you go for you! Enjoy your babies, they are so beautiful! Thanks for introducing me to YNAB... love it! And most of all, thanks for being such a great example to me since I was little. You have always been two great girls to look up to and strive to be like.
- August 18, 2011 at 8:16 AM
- Eileen said...
Glad I found your blog - it gave me hope on one of my crying days. Thanks for sharing your lives and I hope you keep the archives up. Best wishes.
- August 18, 2011 at 11:30 AM
- Kate said...
I mimic everyone else when I say I'm sad to see it end but excited for you to have more time on your hands for your cutes babes! you will be missed here for sure. happy to have been a part of it a little bit! loved what you both said... feel really lucky you both are my friends!
- August 18, 2011 at 2:04 PM
- Britta said...
I want to thank you girls for the great information you passed along. Blogging truly is a place to exchange and learn new information. Thank you for helping me become a better mother.
- August 18, 2011 at 6:56 PM
- Rachel said...
I have loved this blog so much. In fact, I think it is one of very few that has been completely authentic. I appreciate that so much. I never left feeling inadequate. I appreciate your genuine thoughts and insights and wish you both the best with your families and futures.
- August 19, 2011 at 1:07 PM
- Greg and Nancy said...
Thank you for sharing so much with us. I will definitely miss you!
- August 19, 2011 at 10:04 PM
- Brittanie said...
I am so sad! But it is the very reason that I love this blog. You are "real" and love the things that I love. This is the only blog I have still followed that is not family/friend related.
I must put in a request to still see the stairway inspiration that Anne mentioned. I fell in love with the stairs pictures. Please tell me the end result! email@example.com
- August 20, 2011 at 8:03 PM
- Astyn said...
Good luck to you both. And thank you for all of the energy you have put into this blog. It has been a refreshing place for me to visit, and is one of the few blogs that I check regularly. Your daily inspiration has meant a lot to me, and helped me get through some hard days.
Thanks again.
- August 24, 2011 at 11:31 AM
- ray-ray says said...
Nnnnnnoooooooooooooooo! But it was a good ride while it lasted. Thanks girls!
- August 28, 2011 at 9:17 PM
- MBC Scrapbooking said...
This is the first time I've ever come across your blog, and I am going to be stopping mine for the exact same reasons. I made my decision a few weeks ago, and couldn't for the life of me find the words of how to say goodbye. Thank you for putting the words right into my mouth (blog:).
You also really put beautifully the "bloom and die" aspect- I have been afraid to stop blogging because it's something I started, something I worked really hard for, and I'm feeling that if I stop, it will be wasted effort and I will come off as being inconsistent. Thank you for reminding me that everything has it's season.
- August 31, 2011 at 4:17 PM
- Melanie said...
Thank you for all the wonderful posts you have shared with all of us. You've been truly inspiring.
- September 1, 2011 at 11:39 AM
- Heidi Perez said...
Wow, good for you. I am impressed with your deep commitment to motherhood. Thanks for having the discipline and courage to do this.
- October 9, 2011 at 1:46 PM
- Emergency Essentials® said...
Hello! We're Emergency Essentials. We took a look at your site and thought you might be interested in becoming one of our affiliate advertisers. Becoming an affiliate is easy, and it's a great way to bring in a little extra income at no expense to you. Click the link for more information.
Thank you, and have a good day.
Affiliate Relations
Emergency Essentials®, Inc.
Find us on Facebook and Twitter!
- November 7, 2011 at 12:46 PM
- Give Hope to Benson and Claire said...
Sad to see you two go although I completely understand your "blogging" dilemma. I have enjoyed checking in on Bloom over the past few years since we've been in contact. Thank you for all you did for Benson and Claire and the auction you held for them 2 years ago this Christmas. I wish you both the best of luck.
- November 30, 2011 at 6:30 PM
- international online pharmacy said...
hey you look so great and cute, your pictures so cute
- December 12, 2011 at 2:39 PM
- robert said...
i like this blog...
Education Jobs | Careers & Recruitment at Jobscharger.com
- February 29, 2012 at 8:50 AM
- ryan james said...
Make Money Online is very easy now, In Internet system we have now best earning system without any work, Just Invest some Money into your Business and Make Perfect Life time Earnings with this Business.
Join Now for Make Perfect Business and Earn Money online from home.
- February 20, 2014 at 12:38 AM


text:
The Dolphins didn't sign Randy Starks to a long-term deal before Monday's deadline for franchise-tag recipients to sign such contracts, which means that both of their starting defensive tackles are on the path to unrestricted free agency after the season.
Reports out of Miami earlier this month were that there weren't any contract talks going on with either Starks or Paul Soliai, the other defensive tackle with an expiring contract. Soliai's agent David Canter expects that to change for his client in the near future, however.
"I'm optimistic the team will come to us with a fair market deal to try to get it done. If not we'll play it out," Canter said, via Andrew Abramson of the Palm Beach Post. "One reason Randy has been so successful, Cameron Wake has been so successful, all the other guys on the front seven are so successful, a lot of it has to do with the big man up front. It all starts with him, he knows that, and he has accepted that role."
The Dolphins will have a few different options available to them on the defensive line after the 2013 season. With Dion Jordan on hand to play end, Jared Odrick could kick inside to play tackle in the event that Starks or Soliai leaves the team or the Dolphins could wind up moving in a different direction altogether if the 2013 season doesn't play out as hoped. It's hard to see them keeping both of the veteran tackles, however, so being the first to land a deal could be the only way to guarantee a future in Miami.