473,320 Members | 1,946 Online
Bytes | Software Development & Data Engineering Community
Post Job

Home Posts Topics Members FAQ

Join Bytes to post your question to a community of 473,320 software developers and data experts.

CSS is BAD - my survey


I use Opera (the best browser). In Opera I can switch instantly
from the page style sheet to my own, which is:

TABLE { border: 1px solid red; }
TD { border: 1px dotted red; }

Ninety-percent of the web pages I see are made
much more readable by using my own style sheet.

Most web pages use tables. Most web pages are
made *less readable* by the use of CSS.

OK, ok, I understand the logic of CSS. I use CSS on
my web site, which has many pages. Re-decoration of
many page is much easier with one CSS file.

After much effort and education here on ciwas I've decided
that CSS is too unstable for page arrangement with diverse
pages on the site. By "unstable" I mean with regard to
page-design demands and diverse browsers.

I accuse CSS of encouraging (not *causing*) unreadable design,
including color choices, concealed links, and general
obfuscation. It's many *tricks* do not add to site function, which
is communication.

Conclusion: Design with tables. Focus on readability. Make
the design functional with CSS and Javascript turned off and
on *all* browsers. Then decorate with CSS with *no* loss of
readability -- restraint !

Mason C

P.S. my eyes and monitor are good.
Jul 21 '05 #1
35 2456
In article <oo********************************@4ax.com>, Mason A. Clark
<ma*************@ix.netcom.com> wrote:

[snip]

Don't feed the troll.
Jul 21 '05 #2
On Fri, 24 Jun 2005 06:33:59 GMT, Bouncer <bo****@onyou.com> wrote:
In article <oo********************************@4ax.com>, Mason A. Clark
<ma*************@ix.netcom.com> wrote:

[snip]

Don't feed the troll.


You just did. By the way, did you get any lesson from the troll?

Smart fish learn and live.

Mason C

Jul 21 '05 #3
Mason A. Clark wrote:

Conclusion: ... Focus on readability. Make
the design functional
That's what you should do regardless of the layout mechanics.

I find that table layouts often fail miserably in this regard, probably
because the vast majority of them are fixed-width and don't adapt (well)
to my not-exactly-average browsing environment. Poorly designed CSS
layouts fail, too.
P.S. my eyes and monitor are good.


Not everyone is so lucky.

--
Reply email address is a bottomless spam bucket.
Please reply to the group so everyone can share.
Jul 21 '05 #4
Mel

"Mason A. Clark" <ma*************@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:oo********************************@4ax.com...

I use Opera (the best browser). In Opera I can switch instantly
from the page style sheet to my own, which is:

TABLE { border: 1px solid red; }
TD { border: 1px dotted red; }

Ninety-percent of the web pages I see are made
much more readable by using my own style sheet.

Most web pages use tables. Most web pages are
made *less readable* by the use of CSS.

OK, ok, I understand the logic of CSS. I use CSS on
my web site, which has many pages. Re-decoration of
many page is much easier with one CSS file.

After much effort and education here on ciwas I've decided
that CSS is too unstable for page arrangement with diverse
pages on the site. By "unstable" I mean with regard to
page-design demands and diverse browsers.

I accuse CSS of encouraging (not *causing*) unreadable design,
including color choices, concealed links, and general
obfuscation. It's many *tricks* do not add to site function, which
is communication.

Conclusion: Design with tables. Focus on readability. Make
the design functional with CSS and Javascript turned off and
on *all* browsers. Then decorate with CSS with *no* loss of
readability -- restraint !

Mason C

P.S. my eyes and monitor are good.


Well PUT
you have GUTS, me toooo
Jul 21 '05 #5
Mason A. Clark:

I know that you have exhibited troll-like behaviour before, more than
once. I'm replying anyhow.
TABLE { border: 1px solid red; }
TD { border: 1px dotted red; }
Ninety-percent
98.4% of percentage values are made-up spontanously.
of the web pages I see are made
much more readable by using my own style sheet.
How do some red borders enhance readability?
Most web pages use tables.
So?
Most web pages are made *less readable* by the use of CSS.
What do you mean?

Most web pages are made *less readable* by the use of <font>.
Most web pages are made *less readable* by the use of <table>.
Most web pages are made *less readable* by the use of <img>.
...
(...) CSS is too unstable for page arrangement with diverse
pages on the site. By "unstable" I mean with regard to
page-design demands and diverse browsers.
CSS-P indeed requires extensive knowledge and testing, because
- it was superimposed onto the normal stylistic CSS (level 1)
and of course
- browser misimplementations,
but it is doable. HTML tables OTOH provide quickly more or less what the
newbie/deeziner wants---too quickly! They are easily abused and then
force inconveniences.
I accuse CSS of encouraging (not *causing*) unreadable design,
including color choices, concealed links, and general
obfuscation.
Nothing that wouldn't be possible with presentational HTML as well
(except for non-underlined links). Nothing that can't be worked against
with browser settings or user stylesheets either, the latter being
reserved for the advanced user.
It's many *tricks* do not add to site function, which
is communication.
What do you mean by "tricks"?
Conclusion: Design with tables.
You meant to write: "I design with tables."
A simple, serializable, non-nested layout table of two to five cells
hardly causes any more harm than CSS-P would. (They are still no good
mark-up, though, but neither is divitis and classitis.)

It should be noted that the usual website layouts (if they are presented
as intended by the designer) are far from perfect. Most of them have way
too much pseudo content---marketing, gimmick and legal ballast and
unnecessary redundancy. That taken away, often neither layout tables nor
CSS-P is required.
Focus on readability.
Readability has nothing to do with CSS-P vs. layout tables. It is more
about colors and fonts.
Make the design functional with CSS and Javascript turned off
and on *all* browsers. Then decorate with CSS with *no* loss of
readability -- restraint !


Sure, how else would anyone do it?
Jul 21 '05 #6
On Fri, 24 Jun 2005 21:21:47 +0200, Christoph Päper
<ch**************@nurfuerspam.de> wrote:
Mason A. Clark:

I know that you have exhibited troll-like behaviour before, more than
once. I'm replying anyhow.
TABLE { border: 1px solid red; }
TD { border: 1px dotted red; }
Ninety-percent
98.4% of percentage values are made-up spontanously.
of the web pages I see are made
much more readable by using my own style sheet.


How do some red borders enhance readability?


Of course they do not. I put them there to detect the tables.
Most web pages use tables.
So?


Nothing. Just an observation of the *state of the art* and
perhaps the standing of CSS formatting
Most web pages are made *less readable* by the use of CSS.
What do you mean?


My observation: I turn off the CSS to read many (most?) pages.
Most web pages are made *less readable* by the use of <font>.
Most web pages are made *less readable* by the use of <table>.
Most web pages are made *less readable* by the use of <img>.
...
I don't understand any of those three statements.
(...) CSS is too unstable for page arrangement with diverse
pages on the site. By "unstable" I mean with regard to
page-design demands and diverse browsers.
CSS-P indeed requires extensive knowledge and testing, because
- it was superimposed onto the normal stylistic CSS (level 1)
and of course
- browser misimplementations,
but it is doable. HTML tables OTOH provide quickly more or less what the
newbie/deeziner wants---too quickly! They are easily abused and then
force inconveniences.

I accuse CSS of encouraging (not *causing*) unreadable design,
including color choices, concealed links, and general
obfuscation.
Nothing that wouldn't be possible with presentational HTML as well
(except for non-underlined links). Nothing that can't be worked against
with browser settings or user stylesheets either, the latter being
reserved for the advanced user.
It's many *tricks* do not add to site function, which
is communication.


What do you mean by "tricks"?


I'll take for example Eric Meyer's trick of displaying text
by hovering. It's clever. I needed it. I tried to use it. But the font
is not controllable and is too small. It gives inherently low readability.
OK, poor example -- just came to mind as recent experience.
Conclusion: Design with tables.
You meant to write: "I design with tables."


No. I mean it as advise. And, as I reported, this the most
standard, current, state of the art. I did do a statistically-
meaningful survey.
A simple, serializable, non-nested layout table of two to five cells
hardly causes any more harm than CSS-P would. (They are still no good
mark-up, though, but neither is divitis and classitis.)

It should be noted that the usual website layouts (if they are presented
as intended by the designer) are far from perfect. Most of them have way
too much pseudo content---marketing, gimmick and legal ballast and
unnecessary redundancy. That taken away, often neither layout tables nor
CSS-P is required.
Focus on readability.


Readability has nothing to do with CSS-P vs. layout tables. It is more
about colors and fonts.
Make the design functional with CSS and Javascript turned off
and on *all* browsers. Then decorate with CSS with *no* loss of
readability -- restraint !


Sure, how else would anyone do it?


Want to know how many don't do it? Surf the web.

Mason C, common scold
Jul 21 '05 #7
Mason A. Clark wrote:
I'll take for example Eric Meyer's trick of displaying text
by hovering.
CSS Edge is about what can be done with CSS, not what should be done with
CSS. That sort of thing is *really* better done with the addition of DOM
and JavaScript.
But the font is not controllable and is too small.


You are kidding?

http://dorward.me.uk/tmp/demo.html - a different size of popup text on each
item on the left hand menu.

--
David Dorward <http://blog.dorward.me.uk/> <http://dorward.me.uk/>
Home is where the ~/.bashrc is
Jul 21 '05 #8
"Mason A. Clark" <ma*************@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
I use Opera (the best browser).


That one comment alone makes it abundantly clear that all you are
offering thereafter is pure and unadulterated opinion... :)

--

*** Remove the DELETE from my address to reply ***

================================================== ====
Kevin Scholl http://www.ksscholl.com/
ks*****@comcast.DELETE.net
------------------------------------------------------
Information Architecture, Web Design and Development
------------------------------------------------------
We are the music makers, and we are the dreamers of
the dreams...
================================================== ====
Jul 21 '05 #9
On Fri, 24 Jun 2005 22:41:42 +0100, David Dorward <do*****@yahoo.com> wrote:
Mason A. Clark wrote:
I'll take for example Eric Meyer's trick of displaying text
by hovering.


CSS Edge is about what can be done with CSS, not what should be done with
CSS. That sort of thing is *really* better done with the addition of DOM
and JavaScript.
But the font is not controllable and is too small.


You are kidding?

http://dorward.me.uk/tmp/demo.html - a different size of popup text on each
item on the left hand menu.


Ooops. I goofed. Badly. Sorry about that. Thanks for setting me straight.

I forgot my real reason for not using it. I wanted to do those pop-ups on
an image map. Couldn't make it do that.

Mason C
Jul 21 '05 #10
Since I have your attention, in all fairness, my web site is:

http://masonc.home.netcom.com/index.html

I just today got it all in the same format (with some
exceptional pages).

Mason C criticisms more than welcome
Jul 21 '05 #11
Mason A. Clark wrote:
Since I have your attention, in all fairness, my web site is:

http://masonc.home.netcom.com/index.html

I just today got it all in the same format (with some
exceptional pages).
Which contains CSS

Mason C criticisms more than welcome

Jul 21 '05 #12
Mason A. Clark:
On Fri, 24 Jun 2005 21:21:47 +0200, Christoph Päper
Mason A. Clark:
Ninety-percent of the web pages I see are made
much more readable by using my own style sheet.
How do some red borders enhance readability?


Of course they do not. I put them there to detect the tables.


That paragraph made no sense then.
Most web pages use tables.


So?


Nothing. Just an observation of the *state of the art* and
perhaps the standing of CSS formatting


First off, many webpages (or page generators, CMSs) are old and never or
only evolutionary updated.

Secondly, "State of the art" is never what the majority is doing, but
what the best-knowing ones do and the interested ones want to be able to
do and try to copy.
Most web pages are made *less readable* by the use of CSS.


What do you mean?


My observation: I turn off the CSS to read many (most?) pages.


And that's the fault of CSS? No, it's the fault of (some) users of CSS.
Unlike guns, which can only be used badly, CSS can be used well.
Most web pages are made *less readable* by the use of <font>.
Most web pages are made *less readable* by the use of <table>.
Most web pages are made *less readable* by the use of <img>.
...


I don't understand any of those three statements.


Your "conclusion" applies to CSS just as much as to HTML. Or kitchen
knives, which can be used to kill someone.
It's many *tricks* do not add to site function, which
is communication.


What do you mean by "tricks"?


I'll take for example Eric Meyer's trick of displaying text
by hovering. It's clever. I needed it. I tried to use it.


You cannot handle advanced CSS, so CSS is bad? Strange logic. Well,
actually it's a childish act of defiance. Guess why Eric Meyer put
"Edge" into the name of his site. Nobody forces you to use that stuff,
that for alarge part isn't possible with plain HTML, though.
Conclusion: Design with tables.


You meant to write: "I design with tables."


No. I mean it as advise.


Sorry, but you don't seem competent enough to give general advice.
And, as I reported, this the most standard, current, state of the art.
I did do a statistically-meaningful survey.
Yeah, sure. (The---for some reason---interested reader may google this
group for examples of your "statistically meaningful surveys"---if I'm
not confusing you with someone else.)
Make the design functional with CSS and Javascript turned off
and on *all* browsers. Then decorate with CSS with *no* loss of
readability -- restraint !


Sure, how else would anyone do it?


Actually I didn't read that paragraph carefully enough: the third word
should not be "design" but "page", "document", "content" or "mark-up",
then I would agree.
Want to know how many don't do it? Surf the web.


Still no reason for why CSS would be bad. After all one of its key
features is that you can easily turn it off or overwrite, something that
is not so trivial for most aspects of presentational HTML.
Jul 21 '05 #13
in comp.infosystems.www.authoring.stylesheets, Kevin Scholl wrote:
"Mason A. Clark" <ma*************@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
I use Opera (the best browser).


That one comment alone makes it abundantly clear that all you are
offering thereafter is pure and unadulterated opinion... :)


At least it indicates that he isn't judging problems with CSS only
knowing brosers with lousy CSS support like IE or FF...

Anyway, if you can't do good CSS layout, it is much better to do good
table layout. Doing good CSS layout is not excatly easy, and none of the
most popular sites has done it.

Of course, 99% of all layouts are not good, no matter if layout is by CSS
or by tables. In case of frames, it is 100%, but that won't change the
avarage of 99%, as frames are so rare today.
(I guarantee that there is less error than 1 in those figures.)






1=100%, of course...

--
Lauri Raittila <http://www.iki.fi/lr> <http://www.iki.fi/zwak/fonts>
Kohtuuhintainen yksiö/huone haussa Oulusta syyskuusta eteenpäin.
Searching places to sleep on axis Bonn - Tsech - Poland - baltic sea in
july




Jul 21 '05 #14
Mason A. Clark <ma*************@ix.netcom.com> wrote in
news:jo********************************@4ax.com:
http://masonc.home.netcom.com/index.html


Not as bad as I expected from reading your ideas that started this
thread. I would dump the table in favor of CSS though. But what you
have seems to work ok visually; probably not as well audibly.

My very first impression was "too busy." I recommend adding some more
white space. You are not using the same amount of padding or margins
(didn't look at the CSS) in the right column as in the center. Making
them the same would add a bit of white space to the right column making
the page less busy.

As for your markup, you vary widely in some of your methods. For
instance, you leave many attribute values unquoted while quoting
others. All non-numeric values should be quoted; personnally, I've
taken lately to quoting all values, even numeric.

While using tables, you also use divs extensively. In many places
where you have a div inside of a td, you could simply style the td and
not need the div. This would at least tighten your code up making it
more readable.

Making the code more readable is my main reason for dumping table
usage. I find my code much easier to follow and make edits without
tables.

My opinion of strict vs. transitional is that transitional is to allow
*old* pages to still be viewed. With the HTML 4.01 recommendation
being made in 1998, the transition period, IMO, is long past. All new
pages should be created using the most modern method: strict.

Of course, the above paragraph is my opinion and nobody must do things
my way unless they are in one of my classes and being graded on their
work. I teach to use strict and CSS. Without thoroughly studying your
index page which is the only one I looked at, you would lose some
points for your table and transitional usage; maybe a C on it.

One other thing I noticed is an alt="O" on one image. Why would you
want a blind person to hear O there?

When I first read your initial post, I thought "troll" and did not
respond. After I saw that you were joining in as a discussion, that
initial judgement has changed. I disagree with most of what you wrote
but that's ok. It'd be a pretty boring world if we all thought the
same.

--
Stan McCann "Uncle Pirate" http://stanmccann.us/pirate.html
Webmaster/Computer Center Manager, NMSU at Alamogordo
http://alamo.nmsu.edu/ There are 10 kinds of people.
Those that understand binary and those that don't.
Jul 21 '05 #15
On Sat, 25 Jun 2005 15:20:17 +0100, PhilG <ph**@aplusdesign.co.uk> wrote:
Mason A. Clark wrote:
Since I have your attention, in all fairness, my web site is:

http://masonc.home.netcom.com/index.html

I just today got it all in the same format (with some
exceptional pages).


Which contains CSS

Mason C criticisms more than welcome


Is that a criticism?

By the way, here's a page I just saw that illustrates my scolding:

http://www.virtualani.freeserve.co.u...ts/kinross.htm

In Opera, and with a little more effort in Firefox, the page can be
made *more readable* by turning off CSS and zooming. The
Print Review is another way to view pages, but why use yellow ink?

I, for one, do not like to read much on the screen. Bad readability
design is one reason. Why was the web invented? Art or communication?

Mason C
Jul 21 '05 #16
Mason A. Clark wrote:
By the way, here's a page I just saw that illustrates my scolding:

http://www.virtualani.freeserve.co.u...ts/kinross.htm

In Opera, and with a little more effort in Firefox, the page can be
made *more readable* by turning off CSS and zooming. The Print
Review is another way to view pages, but why use yellow ink?
Poor example. Except for an a:hover, there _is_no_ CSS in that page.
Doesn't make a bit of difference if you turn it on of off. Bad code, too.
I, for one, do not like to read much on the screen.
Seek out image and photo sites?
Bad readability design is one reason. Why was the web invented?
Art or communication?


Both.

--
-bts
-This space intentionally left blank.
Jul 21 '05 #17
Mason A. Clark

If you hate CSS so much then don't use it.

Jul 21 '05 #18
On Sat, 25 Jun 2005 23:11:02 GMT, "Beauregard T. Shagnasty"
<a.*********@example.invalid> wrote:
Mason A. Clark wrote:
By the way, here's a page I just saw that illustrates my scolding:

http://www.virtualani.freeserve.co.u...ts/kinross.htm

In Opera, and with a little more effort in Firefox, the page can be
made *more readable* by turning off CSS and zooming. The Print
Review is another way to view pages, but why use yellow ink?
Poor example. Except for an a:hover, there _is_no_ CSS in that page.
Doesn't make a bit of difference if you turn it on of off. Bad code, too.
I, for one, do not like to read much on the screen.


Seek out image and photo sites?


No. If long, print it for reading ( print styling is important ! ). But even
for short text the ancient Egyptian invention by Gutenberg is best: black on
white. Pink on violet is inferior -- but *art*.
Bad readability design is one reason. Why was the web invented?
Art or communication?


Both.

*invented* ?

Jul 21 '05 #19
On 25 Jun 2005 12:50:37 -0700, Stan McCann <me@stanmccann.us> wrote:
Mason A. Clark <ma*************@ix.netcom.com> wrote in
news:jo********************************@4ax.com :
http://masonc.home.netcom.com/index.html


Not as bad as I expected from reading your ideas that started this
thread. I would dump the table in favor of CSS though. But what you
have seems to work ok visually; probably not as well audibly.


Thank you very much for your extensive comments. I will print
them and work on them. ( But no promise to abandon tables.)

The *audible* is unknown to me so I need to work on that.

Thanks again,

Mason Clark

Jul 21 '05 #20
Mason A. Clark <ma*************@ix.netcom.com> wrote in
news:oo********************************@4ax.com:

The REAL conclusion - Mason and Many others SUCK at coding CSS.

Lol what a n00bie.. Hey, even if you cant handle it doesn't mean it isn't
any good..
Jul 21 '05 #21
On Mon, 27 Jun 2005 16:13:21 +0000 (UTC), "Jam-Pa" <no**********@anon-non.org>
wrote:
Mason A. Clark <ma*************@ix.netcom.com> wrote in
news:oo********************************@4ax.com :

The REAL conclusion - Mason and Many others SUCK at coding CSS.

Lol what a n00bie.. Hey, even if you cant handle it doesn't mean it isn't
any good..


Anyone posting thus is *obligated* to include a url to *their* work.

Mason C http://masonc.home.netcom.com
Jul 21 '05 #22
On 05/06/25 05:45 Mason A. Clark apparently typed:
Since I have your attention, in all fairness, my web site is: http://masonc.home.netcom.com/index.html I just today got it all in the same format (with some
exceptional pages). Mason C criticisms more than welcome


"Scattergun" comes to mind, but the strangest looking thing is starting
paragraphs with links using physically smaller text than the subsequent
text. .titleText { FONT: 100%... does a lousy job of making titles look like
titles. .emText { FONT: 100% Arial... makes little sense either, since it
looks little or no different from ordinary paragraph text. Title text really
should be marked up as a title, leaving styling via CSS unnecessary in most
cases. This all makes the page remind me of a n00b using Homesite or
Frontpage rather than hand tooled HTML & CSS.

Pay a visit to
http://members.ij.net/mrmazda/auth/F...mplesExtS.html and
think about what you see there before creating any new font-family styling.
--
"Love does not demand its own way." 1 Corinthians 13:5

Team OS/2 ** Reg. Linux User #211409

Felix Miata *** http://members.ij.net/mrmazda/auth/

----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
Jul 21 '05 #23
On Tue, 28 Jun 2005 23:20:26 -0400, Felix Miata <Ug********************@dev.nul>
wrote:
"Scattergun" comes to mind, but the strangest looking thing is starting
paragraphs with links using physically smaller text than the subsequent


Felix

Thanks for the comments. Every one helps. Trolling *works* :-)
I'll work on it.
P.S. Whoa.... wait a moment. You must be commenting on the
css file. I did not use titleText and used emText once in future.html
which is not posted and is not yet edited. ( I did just now delete them.)

My css file has lots of stuff accumulated during development.

I'll clean out the css file some day but I have 30 or so complex
pages to check for usage and better things to do.

I cannot relate your comments, well-intended I'm sure, to my
..html pages. It is the html pages that the viewer sees.

Mason C Trolls catch strange things sometimes :-)
Jul 21 '05 #24
Felix Miata <Ug********************@dev.nul> wrote:
This all makes the page remind me of a n00b using Homesite or
Frontpage rather than hand tooled HTML & CSS.


Homesite is a code editor, older versions on older MS OSs briefly had a
function that allowed a rudimentary form of WYSIWYG editing that relied
on an MS DLL, used in that mode it produced crap code.

This feature was heavily criticised by most Homesite users, it's no
longer part of the later versions, it's no longer supported on later MS
OSs, and on older versions the "feature" can and is disabled by most
users.

Bracketing Homesite with Frontpage is a fallacy.

--
Spartanicus
Jul 21 '05 #25
Mason A. Clark <ma*************@ix.netcom.com> wrote in
news:8r********************************@4ax.com:
http://masonc.home.netcom.com


W3C CSS Validator Results for http://masonc.home.netcom.com/

To work as intended, your CSS style sheet needs a correct document parse
tree. This means you should use valid HTML.
Errors
URI : http://masonc.home.netcom.com/1main1.css

* Line: 4 Context : #sideBar

Parse Error - [empty string]
* Line: 11 Context : #topBar

expression("absolute") is not a position value : expression
("absolute")
* Line: 12 Context : #topBar

Parse Error - document.body.scrollTop +0))
* Line: 90 Context : BODY

Parse Error - [empty string]
* Line: 90 Context : BODY

Parse Error - [empty string]
* Line: 91 Context : BODY

Parse Error - [empty string]
Jul 21 '05 #26
On 05/06/29 03:08 Spartanicus apparently typed:
Bracketing Homesite with Frontpage is a fallacy.


Do you mean FP is capable of producing standards-compliant HTML?
http://tinyurl.com/8xtkj
--
"If you love your children, you will be prompt to discipline them."
Proverbs 13:24

Team OS/2 ** Reg. Linux User #211409

Felix Miata *** http://members.ij.net/mrmazda/auth/

----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
Jul 21 '05 #27
Felix Miata <Ug********************@dev.nul> wrote:
Bracketing Homesite with Frontpage is a fallacy.
Do you mean FP is capable of producing standards-compliant HTML?


If you want to make a statement do so. If this was an attempt at irony,
it didn't work.
http://tinyurl.com/8xtkj


I don't follow obfuscated urls.

--
Spartanicus
Jul 21 '05 #28
Have you seen what can be done by separating content and presentation?

http://www.csszengarden.com

The separation sure makes it easy for the content author and graphic
designer to do their jobs separately.

Also you aren't the only one who misses some of the things that tables
make easy. It's just that the tables have to be implemented in the css
file. Maybe in a few years tables will make a comeback in the form of
css. Look at this

http://garyblue.port5.com/webdev/3col-modern.html

-Peter

Jul 21 '05 #29
On 05/07/03 03:21 Spartanicus apparently typed:
Felix Miata <Ug********************@dev.nul> wrote:
Bracketing Homesite with Frontpage is a fallacy.
Do you mean FP is capable of producing standards-compliant HTML? If you want to make a statement do so. If this was an attempt at irony,
it didn't work.


No irony. FP is garbageware.
http://tinyurl.com/8xtkj


I don't follow obfuscated urls.


Hehe. You think the original is better? :-)
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/buglist...op&value0-0-0=
--
"If you love your children, you will be prompt to discipline them."
Proverbs 13:24

Team OS/2 ** Reg. Linux User #211409

Felix Miata *** http://members.ij.net/mrmazda/auth/

----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
Jul 21 '05 #30
Felix Miata <Ug********************@dev.nul> wrote:
Bracketing Homesite with Frontpage is a fallacy.Do you mean FP is capable of producing standards-compliant HTML?
If you want to make a statement do so. If this was an attempt at irony,
it didn't work.


No irony. FP is garbageware.


And the relation to what I wrote is?

Btw, Frontpage *is* capable of producing correct and valid HTML provided
that you use it as an editor, not in it's WYSIWYG mode. Frontpage was
developed to be used in WYSIWYG mode with a manual code editor add on,
Homesite was developed as a manual code editor that temporarily had an
option to use it in WYSIWYG mode.
http://tinyurl.com/8xtkj


I don't follow obfuscated urls.


Hehe. You think the original is better? :-)
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/buglist...op&value0-0-0=


Yes, but I should have written that I don't follow urls unless I know
what I can expect at the end of it and why it is being posted. The
latter is still not clear.

--
Spartanicus
Jul 21 '05 #31
pe**********@yahoo.com wrote:
Have you seen what can be done by separating content and presentation?

http://www.csszengarden.com

The separation sure makes it easy for the content author and graphic
designer to do their jobs separately.

Also you aren't the only one who misses some of the things that tables
make easy. It's just that the tables have to be implemented in the css
file. Maybe in a few years tables will make a comeback in the form of
css.
Tables are actually highly covered in CSS - but not layout tables ;-) Anyway
I fully agree with your general point that the future of screen presentation
is CSS.
Look at this

http://garyblue.port5.com/webdev/3col-modern.html


Nice one - have you had a look at it in PC IE?

Some things that are actually missing for easy layouting:
- border box model (implemented in CSS 3)
- unit calculation (such as: width:50% - 3em + 2px)
- a reference for total height and width (that says: if the content is
smaller than the viewport, render to the edge of the viewport; else render
to the end of content)
- and of course overall consistent browser support, as your example shows

Also - and this goes beyond the CSS/table layout "question" - in order to
propagate a flexible design (apart from pixel-defined sizes) an algorithm
for high quality image scaling would be necessary, and also background image
scaling.

At present a total separation of structure and presentation can only be
achieved by limiting the design to the technical possibilities (which are
quite poor so far). That does not mean that CSS is bad or tables should have
a comeback, but that neither the specifications nor their technical
implementations are fully grown up.

--
Markus
Jul 21 '05 #32
On 05/07/05 03:35 Spartanicus apparently typed:
http://tinyurl.com/8xtkj I don't follow obfuscated urls.
Hehe. You think the original is better? :-)
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/buglist...op&value0-0-0=
Yes, but I should have written that I don't follow urls unless I know
what I can expect at the end of it and why it is being posted. The
latter is still not clear.


Of course it isn't clear. But, the first portion tells you that it is a
Mozilla.org Bugzilla buglist. The result happens to be a list of TE bugs
against sites created with FP that are broken in standards-compliant browsers.
--
"If you love your children, you will be prompt to discipline them."
Proverbs 13:24

Team OS/2 ** Reg. Linux User #211409

Felix Miata *** http://members.ij.net/mrmazda/auth/

----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
Jul 21 '05 #33
Felix Miata <Ug********************@dev.nul> wrote:
Of course it isn't clear. But, the first portion tells you that it is a
Mozilla.org Bugzilla buglist. The result happens to be a list of TE bugs
against sites created with FP that are broken in standards-compliant browsers.


The purpose of your posts in this thread continues to be a mystery.

--
Spartanicus
Jul 21 '05 #34
On 05/07/06 09:34 Spartanicus apparently typed:
Felix Miata <Ug********************@dev.nul> wrote:
Of course it isn't clear. But, the first portion tells you that it is a
Mozilla.org Bugzilla buglist. The result happens to be a list of TE bugs
against sites created with FP that are broken in standards-compliant browsers.

The purpose of your posts in this thread continues to be a mystery.


If you would actually open the links in the buglist it would be evident.
--
"If you love your children, you will be prompt to discipline them."
Proverbs 13:24

Team OS/2 ** Reg. Linux User #211409

Felix Miata *** http://members.ij.net/mrmazda/auth/

----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
Jul 21 '05 #35
Felix Miata <Ug********************@dev.nul> wrote:
The purpose of your posts in this thread continues to be a mystery.


If you would actually open the links in the buglist it would be evident.


The mystery is why you felt the need to have a dig at FP when no one in
the thread was defending or advocating it, and why you questioned that
FP is capable of producing standard compliant HTML.

Until provide with a plausible reason I'll assume poor perception in the
first and ignorance in the latter case.

--
Spartanicus
Jul 21 '05 #36

This thread has been closed and replies have been disabled. Please start a new discussion.

Similar topics

1
by: GTF | last post by:
PHP Web Survey Idea.. I have been given an opportunity to create a web based survey. This is a fairly lengthy survey of 60 pages on paper (various multiple choice and free form). These are...
8
by: S.Marion | last post by:
Hello, We are interested in programmers' experiences of programming languages supported by managed runtimes (including but not limited to Java, C#, etc). In particular, we are interested in bugs...
0
by: Kenzo Fong | last post by:
Hi everyone, Sorry to fill up this newsgroup with this request, but for coursework at Erasmus University (the Netherlands) I need to conduct a survey regarding the use of certain open source...
5
by: DFS | last post by:
I've written several survey systems in which the majority of the questions have the same or similar responses (Yes/No, True/False, scale of 1 - 5, etc). But this latest survey system I'm working...
1
by: Nico Baumgarten | last post by:
Dear Madam/Sir, You are invited to participate in an international research study. This research project is headed and led by Cambridge student Nico Baumgarten. What is it all about? It is a...
1
by: Jens Arndt | last post by:
Hi everyone, a few weeks ago I asked you to assist me with a paper I am writing on newsgroup behavior. I want to thank all of you who answered my survey, your input helped me a lot. Although...
2
by: Matt | last post by:
Hi everyone, Constructed a fairly big table with 20 rows, most of which are TINYINTs based on user selection for a dropdown box. This is the form: http://www.threechords.org/spb/survey/ ...
0
by: Janet93 | last post by:
If you are involved in the development of scientific computing software, you are invited to participate in a survey on developing this kind of software. If you have already received this request, I...
0
by: DolphinDB | last post by:
The formulas of 101 quantitative trading alphas used by WorldQuant were presented in the paper 101 Formulaic Alphas. However, some formulas are complex, leading to challenges in calculation. Take...
0
by: ryjfgjl | last post by:
ExcelToDatabase: batch import excel into database automatically...
0
isladogs
by: isladogs | last post by:
The next Access Europe meeting will be on Wednesday 6 Mar 2024 starting at 18:00 UK time (6PM UTC) and finishing at about 19:15 (7.15PM). In this month's session, we are pleased to welcome back...
1
isladogs
by: isladogs | last post by:
The next Access Europe meeting will be on Wednesday 6 Mar 2024 starting at 18:00 UK time (6PM UTC) and finishing at about 19:15 (7.15PM). In this month's session, we are pleased to welcome back...
0
by: Vimpel783 | last post by:
Hello! Guys, I found this code on the Internet, but I need to modify it a little. It works well, the problem is this: Data is sent from only one cell, in this case B5, but it is necessary that data...
0
by: ArrayDB | last post by:
The error message I've encountered is; ERROR:root:Error generating model response: exception: access violation writing 0x0000000000005140, which seems to be indicative of an access violation...
1
by: PapaRatzi | last post by:
Hello, I am teaching myself MS Access forms design and Visual Basic. I've created a table to capture a list of Top 30 singles and forms to capture new entries. The final step is a form (unbound)...
0
by: Defcon1945 | last post by:
I'm trying to learn Python using Pycharm but import shutil doesn't work
0
by: Shællîpôpï 09 | last post by:
If u are using a keypad phone, how do u turn on JavaScript, to access features like WhatsApp, Facebook, Instagram....

By using Bytes.com and it's services, you agree to our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.

To disable or enable advertisements and analytics tracking please visit the manage ads & tracking page.