Number of CSS capable browsers out there?

[Frederick J. Barnett]

I'm re-doing one of my web sites, and I'm considering finally
making the jump to CSS. I've always resisted using it before out of
worries that there are still a lot of non-CSS capable browsers out
there, and I didn't want to have to write both CSS and deprecated
tags, but to me it's just redundant. It's either one or the other.
So is there any way I can find out what browsers most people
are using now? Is it "safe" to use CSS, or should I stick with
straight HTML?
Thanks in advance for any replys.

Frederick J. Barnett http://www.eatel.net/~fred/
"Someone's got to take the responsibility if the job's going to get done!! Do you think that's easy?!" Gregory Peck - The Guns Of Navarone

[Beauregard T. Shagnasty]

Frederick J. Barnett wrote:

I'm re-doing one of my web sites, and I'm considering finally making
the jump to CSS. I've always resisted using it before out of worries
that there are still a lot of non-CSS capable browsers out there,
Hmm .. trying to remember .. Netscape 1? IE 2? Been so long, I've
forgotten. Aha. OffByOne doesn't do CSS. Lynx doesn't do CSS.
and I didn't want to have to write both CSS and deprecated tags, but
to me it's just redundant. It's either one or the other.
Once you figure out how to efficiently use CSS, you will kick yourself
for not starting five or six years ago.
So is there any way I can find out what browsers most people are using
now? Is it "safe" to use CSS, or should I stick with straight HTML?

According to my logs, all visitors are using modern browsers, all
capable of rendering CSS.

--
-bts
-Warning: I brake for lawn deer

[Frederick J. Barnett]

On Mon, 13 Feb 2006 22:03:09 GMT, "Beauregard T. Shagnasty"
<a.*********@example.invalid> wrote:

Once you figure out how to efficiently use CSS, you will kick yourself
for not starting five or six years ago.

Probably. :-)
The reason I'm really considering it is there's something I
would "like" to do that CSS will let me do. But if a large portion of
the visitors won't be able to see it, there's no reason to even
bother.
Something I forgot to ask in my original post: What about CSS1
vs. CSS2 capabilities?

Frederick J. Barnett http://www.eatel.net/~fred/
"Someone's got to take the responsibility if the job's going to get done!! Do you think that's easy?!" Gregory Peck - The Guns Of Navarone

[kchayka]

Frederick J. Barnett wrote:

Something I forgot to ask in my original post: What about CSS1
vs. CSS2 capabilities?

You are indeed behind the times, mate. Most modern browsers are gearing
up for CSS3. Heck, even IE7 might support a little CSS3, but probably
not well. ;)

Don't even waste your time worrying about CSS1.

--
Reply email address is a bottomless spam bucket.
Please reply to the group so everyone can share.

[Alan J. Flavell]

On Mon, 13 Feb 2006, Frederick J. Barnett wrote:

I'm re-doing one of my web sites, and I'm considering finally
making the jump to CSS. I've always resisted using it before out of
worries that there are still a lot of non-CSS capable browsers out
there, and I didn't want to have to write both CSS and deprecated
tags, but to me it's just redundant. It's either one or the other.
Wrong question. The *advantage* of CSS is that it's designed to be
optional. Once you wrap your mind around that concept, it starts to
make sense.
So is there any way I can find out what browsers most people
are using now? Is it "safe" to use CSS, or should I stick with
straight HTML?

It was always unsafe to "stick with" the disreputable mess that went
into HTML/3.2. If you check the HTML/2.0 specification with a
sufficiently receptive mind, you'll see that presentation was supposed
to be delegated to stylesheets, right from the start. It took a long
while to get there, by many dead-end diversions: but it happened, some
time back now - even if some "deezyners" haven't noticed yet.

h t h

[Beauregard T. Shagnasty]

Frederick J. Barnett wrote:

On Mon, 13 Feb 2006 22:03:09 GMT, "Beauregard T. Shagnasty"
<a.*********@example.invalid> wrote:

Once you figure out how to efficiently use CSS, you will kick
yourself for not starting five or six years ago.
Probably. :-)
The reason I'm really considering it is there's something I would
"like" to do that CSS will let me do. But if a large portion of the
visitors won't be able to see it, there's no reason to even bother.

I'd bet that one in a thousand visitors would *not* see your CSS, if
even that large a percentage.

Search engine bots also have an easier time if you separate content from
presentation.
Something I forgot to ask in my original post: What about CSS1 vs.
CSS2 capabilities?

Rather than worry about that, worry (well, not really "worry") about the
inconsistencies with IE. And also consider that your normal visitors
will only ever use one browser, unlike us developers who check with many
browsers.

--
-bts
-Warning: I brake for lawn deer