Does CSS Suck?

[Bill Norton]

Over at PCMag.com there is a debate going on over the usability of CSS. The
discussion was initiated by an article by John Dvorak called "Why CSS Bugs
Me" (http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,1759,1987181,00.asp). The discussion
starts here:
http://discuss.pcmag.com/forums/1/10...spx#1004331343.

Someone suggested that some of you folks might have a thing or two to say
about the topic, so I'm inviting everyone to drop by and give their
thoughts.

May I suggest that you not spend too much effort or attention on the Dvorak
article per se, since it's one of the more poorly written posts.

The upshot of it all is that there seem to be a lot of people - myself
included - who feel that CSS is seriously flawed, maybe even fatally flawed.
I'd like to hear your thoughts on it.

[Beauregard T. Shagnasty]

Bill Norton wrote:

Over at PCMag.com there is a debate going on over the usability of
CSS. The discussion was initiated by an article by John Dvorak called
"Why CSS Bugs Me" (http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,1759,1987181,00.asp).
The discussion starts here:
http://discuss.pcmag.com/forums/1/10...spx#1004331343.

I think the comments by blueice03 (near the bottom) says it best. You
actually have to *learn* how to use it correctly.

Someone suggested that some of you folks might have a thing or two to
say about the topic, so I'm inviting everyone to drop by and give
their thoughts.

Nah ...

May I suggest that you not spend too much effort or attention on the
Dvorak article per se, since it's one of the more poorly written
posts.

Must agree with that. <g>

The upshot of it all is that there seem to be a lot of people -
myself included - who feel that CSS is seriously flawed, maybe even
fatally flawed. I'd like to hear your thoughts on it.

CSS is only flawed by those who don't know how to use it.

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

[Wes Groleau]

Bill Norton wrote:

The upshot of it all is that there seem to be a lot of people - myself
included - who feel that CSS is seriously flawed, maybe even fatally flawed.

Please fill in the blanks:

CSS does/has __________. This is a serious flaw because _________.

The solution to this problem is __________________.

If you can't fill in the first two blanks, then your "feeling"
is seriously flawed, maybe even fatally flawed.

If you can fill in the first two, but can't fill in
the third, then your feeling makes no practical difference,
does it?

--
Wes Groleau

Always listen to experts. They'll tell you
what can't be done and why. Then do it.
-- Robert A. Heinlein

[Wes Groleau]

Bill Norton wrote:

May I suggest that you not spend too much effort or attention on the Dvorak
article per se, since it's one of the more poorly written posts.

Most of them are poorly written, at least in terms of common sense.

So Dvorak noticed that some browsers failed to correctly
implement a well-written standard and leapt to the amazing
conclusion that CSS is broken?

Where in ____ did I ever get the notion that guy had brains?

And then ten sycophants pop in to agree with him?

--
Wes Groleau

Always listen to experts. They'll tell you
what can't be done and why. Then do it.
-- Robert A. Heinlein

[Bill Norton]

Well, OK. I guess I was expecting a little more in the way of substance than
this.

Never mind, then.

"Wes Groleau" <gr**********@freeshell.orgwrote in message
news:RCdzg.3109$cj7.653@trnddc01...

Bill Norton wrote:

>May I suggest that you not spend too much effort or attention on the
Dvorak article per se, since it's one of the more poorly written posts.

Most of them are poorly written, at least in terms of common sense.

So Dvorak noticed that some browsers failed to correctly
implement a well-written standard and leapt to the amazing
conclusion that CSS is broken?

Where in ____ did I ever get the notion that guy had brains?

And then ten sycophants pop in to agree with him?

--
Wes Groleau

Always listen to experts. They'll tell you
what can't be done and why. Then do it.
-- Robert A. Heinlein

[axlq]

In article <yj******************@tornado.texas.rr.com>,
Bill Norton <bn*****@austin.rr.comwrote:

>The upshot of it all is that there seem to be a lot of people - myself
included - who feel that CSS is seriously flawed, maybe even fatally flawed.
I'd like to hear your thoughts on it.

CSS isn't flawed, and it doesn't suck. What sucks is Microsoft's
implementation of it. That alone is *the* cause of *my* grief
concerning CSS. If nobody ever used IE for browsing again, CSS
would be a beautiful thing to use. But with IE around, it becomes a
mess of ugly hacks.

-A

[David Dorward]

Bill Norton wrote:

Over at PCMag.com there is a debate going on over the usability of CSS.
The discussion was initiated by an article by John Dvorak called "Why CSS
Bugs Me"

As a rule of thumb, treat anything John Dvorak says as

(a) Complete garbage

and

(b) And attempt to get a rise out of people who like whatever he is trashing
this week (so he gets lots of page views, so ZDNet get advertising revenue,
so he gets paid).

--
David Dorward <http://blog.dorward.me.uk/ <http://dorward.me.uk/>
Home is where the ~/.bashrc is

[Spartanicus]

"Bill Norton" <bn*****@austin.rr.comwrote:

>Over at PCMag.com there is a debate going on over the usability of CSS. The
discussion was initiated by an article by John Dvorak called "Why CSS Bugs
Me" (http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,1759,1987181,00.asp). The discussion
starts here:
http://discuss.pcmag.com/forums/1/10...spx#1004331343.

Someone suggested that some of you folks might have a thing or two to say
about the topic, so I'm inviting everyone to drop by and give their
thoughts.

May I suggest that you not spend too much effort or attention on the Dvorak
article per se, since it's one of the more poorly written posts.

The upshot of it all is that there seem to be a lot of people - myself
included - who feel that CSS is seriously flawed, maybe even fatally flawed.
I'd like to hear your thoughts on it.

Like most discussions on web fora the quality of the discussion is poor,
I gave up after reading a few pages.

There are several threads of considerably better quality in this group's
archive if you want to read up on some of the flaws with and in CSS.

--
Spartanicus

[Jack]

Spartanicus wrote:

>
Like most discussions on web fora the quality of the discussion is
poor, I gave up after reading a few pages.

It's regrettable that web-forums (sick) have steadily become more and
more difficult to discriminate from newsfroups; Google is not solely
responsible for this, by any means. But they are by far the biggest
hijacker of froups.

I guess we never guessed what effect DejaGoo was going to have.

Please come back, DejaVu: all is forgiven!
--
Jack.
http://www.jackpot.uk.net/

[Markus Ernst]

Bill Norton schrieb:

Over at PCMag.com there is a debate going on over the usability of CSS. The
discussion was initiated by an article by John Dvorak called "Why CSS Bugs
Me" (http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,1759,1987181,00.asp). The discussion
starts here:
http://discuss.pcmag.com/forums/1/10...spx#1004331343.

It is an easy and cheap journalist method to present oneself as kind of
a rebel by writing "xxx sucks and I am the only one who dares to say the
truth", and thus get a bunch of pro and contra reactions. The result is
an annoyingly boring discussion with mostly religion-like statements, as
the example shows.

Now here's my point of view: The core idea of CSS is brilliant. Today's
real world appearance of it shows some flaws, some of the most serious
ones are IMO:

1. Not solved problems of screen representation:
- The lack of an overall applicable and consistent unit for screen
representation (as the em value is context dependent)
- The lack of consistent image scaling (technically limited by the
impossibility of acceptable rendering of scaled low-res images;
standards- resp. implementation-limited by the absence of background
scaling)
- Box model problems, which will hopefully be solved with the
availability of the box-sizing property (defining an element with a 2px
border, 1em padding and total width of 60% is impossible; there is not
even a consistent rendering of a text field and a select element with
the same width, border and padding applied)

2. Browser implementations
- Poor implementation of CSS in quite popular browsers, as well known in
this group
- Long lifetime of browser versions makes CSS development very slow. If
today a perfect Internet Explorer would be published, we will still have
to code for IE6 in 5 or 10 years.

3. User understanding
- Clients and sometimes also authors expect CSS to make their site look
identical in every situation, instead of appropriately different in
every situation.
- Designers often design for their own screen as if it was a piece of paper.

Now the presence of this kind of flaws is not surprising, as the
development of CSS is community-driven and influenced by a variety of
stakeholders, such as the W3C, browser manufacturers, authors, authors'
clients, users. This kind of project develops slowly by nature, and it
develops also by people discussing their needs in this group, or posting
suggestions to the W3C, but not by general "CSS sucks" statements.

The alternative to CSS would be a proprietary software developed by one
company. This is actually available - anybody feeling uncomfortable with
CSS can use Flash or PDF to gain total control over the appearance of
his/her informations. I am sure the same person would post a "Why Flash
bugs me" or "Why PDF bugs me" article shortly.

--
Markus

[Spartanicus]

Jack <mr*********@nospam.jackpot.uk.netwrote:

>Like most discussions on web fora the quality of the discussion is
poor, I gave up after reading a few pages.

It's regrettable that web-forums (sick) have steadily become more and
more difficult to discriminate from newsfroups; Google is not solely
responsible for this, by any means. But they are by far the biggest
hijacker of froups.

In referring to web fora I (probably mistakenly) did not intend for
Google Groups to be included amongst those.

Some of us, myself included have taken counter measures by filtering out
all posts originating from Google Groups. In addition I also filter out
the direct follow-ups to these posts. This significantly reduces the
noise in newsgroups.

--
Spartanicus

[Andy Dingley]

Bill Norton wrote:

May I suggest that you not spend too much effort or attention on the Dvorak
article per se,

It's as Bismark said about politics and sausages. I used to read PC
mags avidly, then I wrote for them (PC Mag). Since then I've stopped
buying them.

since it's one of the more poorly written posts.

Is Dvorak's space opera any good?

The upshot of it all is that there seem to be a lot of people - myself
included - who feel that CSS is seriously flawed, maybe even fatally flawed.

CSS is fine. Implementations of it used to be poor. Training and
knowledge of it is still abyssmal.

It's funny how the people who understand CSS manage to produce good
work with it, and the people who claim it's "broken" itself can't. Of
course it's never _their_ fault.

[Harlan Messinger]

Jack wrote:

Spartanicus wrote:

>>
Like most discussions on web fora the quality of the discussion is
poor, I gave up after reading a few pages.

It's regrettable that web-forums (sick)

"Sick"?

[Harlan Messinger]

Bill Norton wrote:

Over at PCMag.com there is a debate going on over the usability of CSS. The
discussion was initiated by an article by John Dvorak called "Why CSS Bugs
Me" (http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,1759,1987181,00.asp). The discussion
starts here:
http://discuss.pcmag.com/forums/1/10...spx#1004331343.

Someone suggested that some of you folks might have a thing or two to say
about the topic, so I'm inviting everyone to drop by and give their
thoughts.

May I suggest that you not spend too much effort or attention on the Dvorak
article per se, since it's one of the more poorly written posts.

The upshot of it all is that there seem to be a lot of people - myself
included - who feel that CSS is seriously flawed, maybe even fatally flawed.
I'd like to hear your thoughts on it.

My thought is that the pervasive use of CSS across the Web squarely
contradicts Dvorak's claim that it is "fatally flawed" and calls into
question the value of any other pronouncement he might make on the subject.

[TomB]

axlq wrote:

CSS isn't flawed, and it doesn't suck. What sucks is Microsoft's
implementation of it. That alone is *the* cause of *my* grief
concerning CSS. If nobody ever used IE for browsing again, CSS
would be a beautiful thing to use. But with IE around, it becomes a
mess of ugly hacks.

Then don't use the hacks. Ignore the fact that IE users can't see your
page properly. If everyone would do that, eventually people will get
sick and tired of that shitty piece of software and use the
alternatives.

What a wonderful world :-)

[Matt]

On Mon, 31 Jul 2006 08:40:43 -0400, Harlan Messinger wrote:

Jack wrote:

>Spartanicus wrote:

>>>
Like most discussions on web fora the quality of the discussion is
poor, I gave up after reading a few pages.

It's regrettable that web-forums (sick)

"Sick"?

I think he meant "sic" (TICBW).

From Wikipedia:
| Sic is a Latin word meaning "thus", "so", or "just as that". In writing,
| it is italicized and placed within square brackets — [sic] — to
| indicate that an incorrect or unusual spelling, phrase, or other
| preceding quoted material is a verbatim reproduction of the quoted
| original and is not a transcription error.

The plural of "forum" is either "fora" or "forums", Jack clearly prefers
"fora".

--
Matt

[axlq]

In article <11**********************@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups .com>,
TomB <to*************@gmail.comwrote:

>CSS isn't flawed, and it doesn't suck. What sucks is Microsoft's
implementation of it. That alone is *the* cause of *my* grief
concerning CSS. If nobody ever used IE for browsing again, CSS
would be a beautiful thing to use. But with IE around, it becomes a
mess of ugly hacks.

Then don't use the hacks.

I generally don't, except for explicitly setting line-height in some
containers to get around the peekaboo bug. That, at least, causes
no pollution in my stylesheet, and won't have any consequences when
a new, better version of IE comes out.

>Ignore the fact that IE users can't see your page properly.

I do. For example, I have CSS tabs with drop-down menus (no
javascript). Anyone can click on a tab to view a page with the menu
choices, but only non-IE users see the drop-down menus on the tabs
themselves.

I try to make things degrade gracefully for IE. But Microsoft is
not paying me to work around their bugs, so I try to avoid it.

>If everyone would do that, eventually people will get sick and
tired of that shitty piece of software and use the alternatives.

No, I think people simply wouldn't be aware of what they're
missing unless they tried the alternatives. And as long as IE
comes with Windows, there's little incentive for anyone but the
technically-inclined to switch.

-A

[Harlan Messinger]

Matt wrote:

On Mon, 31 Jul 2006 08:40:43 -0400, Harlan Messinger wrote:

>Jack wrote:

>>Spartanicus wrote:
Like most discussions on web fora the quality of the discussion is
poor, I gave up after reading a few pages.
It's regrettable that web-forums (sick)

"Sick"?

I think he meant "sic" (TICBW).

I know, and I don't normally correct people's usage on Usenet, but it
was just ironic after he had taken it upon himself to edit "fora", and
on because top of that he was misusing "sic" anyway, as the definition
below corroborates. It's used to notify the reader that the error
preserved in the copy existed in the original, not that the copy is a
correction.

From Wikipedia:
| Sic is a Latin word meaning "thus", "so", or "just as that". In writing,
| it is italicized and placed within square brackets — [sic] — to
| indicate that an incorrect or unusual spelling, phrase, or other
| preceding quoted material is a verbatim reproduction of the quoted
| original and is not a transcription error.

The plural of "forum" is either "fora" or "forums", Jack clearly prefers
"fora".

[Wes Groleau]

Bill Norton wrote:

Well, OK. I guess I was expecting a little more in the way of substance than
this.

"Does it suck? Is it flawed?" has substance?

--
Wes Groleau
"Grant me the serenity to accept those I cannot change;
the courage to change the one I can;
and the wisdom to know it's me."
-- unknown

[Wes Groleau]

TomB wrote:

Then don't use the hacks. Ignore the fact that IE users can't see your
page properly. If everyone would do that, eventually people will get
sick and tired of that shitty piece of software and use the
alternatives.

Nice theory, but the said fact is that the people
who hack and hack until their stuff looks good on
IE with a T1 connection and never notice that it
looks like crap and/or loads like molasses
everywhere else outnumber the folks that know what
they're doing. Since Joe Public doesn't know any
better, he/she assumes that the "looking like crap"
is that fault of all those other browsers.

And if you are in the minority that refuses to cater
to IE's bugs, the general public assumes your website
is crap, never knowing it's their browser. After all,
other sites look good in IE.

--
Wes Groleau

There ain't no right wing,
there ain't no left wing.
There's only you and me and we just disagree.
(apologies to Jim Krueger)

[Alan J. Flavell]

On Tue, 1 Aug 2006, Wes Groleau wrote:

And if you are in the minority that refuses to cater
to IE's bugs, the general public assumes your website
is crap, never knowing it's their browser.

I suspect that the "general public" has no real idea what a browser
is. MesSIE is just there, a component of their OS, and it's what they
use for "exploring the internet". Note that it doesn't call itself
"web explorer", nor could it honestly do so, if only because it
deliberately violates some of the mandatory requirements of the
applicable specifications.

Nevertheless: if one doesn't fool around with over-complex HTML and
CSS, it's usually feasible to design *for* a web-compatible browser,
and not need to change too much to get it displayed acceptably with
IE6, at least.

It wouldn't satisfy the pixel-exact DTP freaks - but they don't
understand designing for the web, anyway.

regards

[Jack]

Matt wrote:

On Mon, 31 Jul 2006 08:40:43 -0400, Harlan Messinger wrote:

>Jack wrote:

>>Spartanicus wrote:
Like most discussions on web fora the quality of the discussion
is poor, I gave up after reading a few pages.
It's regrettable that web-forums (sick)

"Sick"?

I think he meant "sic" (TICBW).

From Wikipedia: | Sic is a Latin word meaning "thus", "so", or "just
as that". In writing, | it is italicized and placed within square
brackets — [sic] — to | indicate that an incorrect or unusual
spelling, phrase, or other | preceding quoted material is a verbatim
reproduction of the quoted | original and is not a transcription
error.

The plural of "forum" is either "fora" or "forums", Jack clearly
prefers "fora".

"Forum" is an english word; the plural is "forums". I sense that I am
being teased.

--
Jack.
http://www.jackpot.uk.net/

[Jack]

Harlan Messinger wrote:

Jack wrote:

>Spartanicus wrote:

>>>
Like most discussions on web fora the quality of the discussion is
poor, I gave up after reading a few pages.

It's regrettable that web-forums (sick)

"Sick"?

It was meant to be an ironic reference to "fora".

--
Jack.
http://www.jackpot.uk.net/

[Harlan Messinger]

Jack wrote:

Matt wrote:

>On Mon, 31 Jul 2006 08:40:43 -0400, Harlan Messinger wrote:

>>Jack wrote:
Spartanicus wrote:
Like most discussions on web fora the quality of the discussion
is poor, I gave up after reading a few pages.
It's regrettable that web-forums (sick)
"Sick"?

I think he meant "sic" (TICBW).

From Wikipedia: | Sic is a Latin word meaning "thus", "so", or "just
as that". In writing, | it is italicized and placed within square
brackets — [sic] — to | indicate that an incorrect or unusual
spelling, phrase, or other | preceding quoted material is a verbatim
reproduction of the quoted | original and is not a transcription
error.

The plural of "forum" is either "fora" or "forums", Jack clearly
prefers "fora".

"Forum" is an english word; the plural is "forums". I sense that I am
being teased.

"Fora" is also recognized by the on-line Merriam-Webster and American
Heritage dictionaries.

[Toby Inkster]

Jack wrote:

"Forum" is an english word; the plural is "forums". I sense that I am
being teased.

"Fora" and "Forums" are both acceptable plurals for "forum".

--
Toby A Inkster BSc (Hons) ARCS
Contact Me ~ http://tobyinkster.co.uk/contact

[Wes Groleau]

Alan J. Flavell wrote:

Nevertheless: if one doesn't fool around with over-complex HTML and
CSS, it's usually feasible to design *for* a web-compatible browser,
and not need to change too much to get it displayed acceptably with
IE6, at least.

Yes, but the majority I was speaking of don't understand HTML or CSS,
so they use "WYSIWYG" tools that DO generate over-complex HTML and
often embed the same CSS commands over and over and over.

It wouldn't satisfy the pixel-exact DTP freaks - but they don't
understand designing for the web, anyway.

Well, the website I'm responsible for wouldn't satisfy
the purists (it uses a table for that part of the formatting
that isn't portable in CSS). But it's simple and maintainable
and looks almost the same on every browser. It's not "designed
for the web" in the way I think you mean, but I didn't design it.

(I RE-designed it to be simple and maintainable--it was
most unpleasant under the hood--while trying to keep the
look they had already approved.)

I have some ideas on ways I might make it better, while still
keeping the owners happy, but time is limited.

--
Wes Groleau
-----------
I've been framed! ...
http://www.useit.com/alertbox/9612.html

[Wes Groleau]

>>It's regrettable that web-forums (sick)

"Sick"?

It was meant to be an ironic reference to "fora".

Sick is what you become with overexposure to web-flora.

--
Wes Groleau

Always listen to experts. They'll tell you
what can't be done and why. Then do it.
-- Robert A. Heinlein

[Kurt Kroon]

On 8/1/06 11:03 AM, in article ea*******************@news.demon.co.uk,
"Jack" <mr*********@nospam.jackpot.uk.netwrote:

"Forum" is an english word; the plural is "forums". I sense that I am
being teased.

From http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=forum

Forum

1460, "place of assembly in ancient Rome," from L[atin] forum "marketplace"
apparently akin to foris, foras "out of doors, outside." Sense of "assembly,
place for public discussion" first recorded 1690.

Since this English word comes from a Latin word, the Latin plural -- fora --
is technically correct.

Then again, nobody ever said English (especially the Usenet dialect) was
"technically correct" -- if it were, we would say "octopodes" instead of
"octopuses".

I could go on and on ... but I won't.

Kurtis
------
Your mileage may vary. Please keep hands and feet inside the car at all
times. Not a flotation device.

[Santos L Halper]

pretty dumb thing to say considering 9 out of 10 posts here sound like "it
works in IE but not FF"

people like you use firefox because somewhere along the line you were told
microsoft is bad... theyre taking over the world... bill gates is satan....
everything should be free and open source.

thats ridiculous.

firefox is what happens when you dont have a highly paid QA department. a
browser with more bugs and flaws than IE ever had

"axlq" <ax**@spamcop.netwrote in message
news:ea**********@blue.rahul.net...

In article <yj******************@tornado.texas.rr.com>,
Bill Norton <bn*****@austin.rr.comwrote:

>>The upshot of it all is that there seem to be a lot of people - myself
included - who feel that CSS is seriously flawed, maybe even fatally
flawed.
I'd like to hear your thoughts on it.

CSS isn't flawed, and it doesn't suck. What sucks is Microsoft's
implementation of it. That alone is *the* cause of *my* grief
concerning CSS. If nobody ever used IE for browsing again, CSS
would be a beautiful thing to use. But with IE around, it becomes a
mess of ugly hacks.

-A

[Santos L Halper]

another genius

"TomB" <to*************@gmail.comwrote in message
news:11**********************@i42g2000cwa.googlegr oups.com...

>
axlq wrote:

>CSS isn't flawed, and it doesn't suck. What sucks is Microsoft's
implementation of it. That alone is *the* cause of *my* grief
concerning CSS. If nobody ever used IE for browsing again, CSS
would be a beautiful thing to use. But with IE around, it becomes a
mess of ugly hacks.

Then don't use the hacks. Ignore the fact that IE users can't see your
page properly. If everyone would do that, eventually people will get
sick and tired of that shitty piece of software and use the
alternatives.

What a wonderful world :-)

[Beauregard T. Shagnasty]

Santos L Halper wrote:

firefox is what happens when you dont have a highly paid QA
department. a browser with more bugs and flaws than IE ever had

<cough>bullshit</cough>

http://secunia.com Count the flaws and exploits yerself for IE and
Firefox.

--
-bts
-Motorcycles defy gravity; cars just suck.

[Kevin Scholl]

Santos L Halper wrote:

pretty dumb thing to say considering 9 out of 10 posts here sound like "it
works in IE but not FF"

Maybe because 9 out 10 people haven't a clue of what they are really doing.

people like you use firefox because somewhere along the line you were told
microsoft is bad... theyre taking over the world... bill gates is satan....
everything should be free and open source.

I would venture to say that most of us that use Firefox do so because
it's a superior browser that supports the W3C standards FAR better than IE.

thats ridiculous.

I couldn't care less what company produces Internet Explorer, or who
runs that company. What I DO care about is a browser that works the way
it should, and in that regard, IE is vastly inferior.

firefox is what happens when you dont have a highly paid QA department. a
browser with more bugs and flaws than IE ever had

I think you mistyped that statement ... should read "Internet Explorer
is what happens when you dont [sic] have an apathetic QA department."

Think about it: would you rather have the power of a multitude of actual
users in the real world providing feedback, or a small group of cube
inhabitants who get paid regardless of the quality aspect of their
Quality Assurance?

"axlq" <ax**@spamcop.netwrote in message
news:ea**********@blue.rahul.net...

>CSS isn't flawed, and it doesn't suck. What sucks is Microsoft's
implementation of it. That alone is *the* cause of *my* grief
concerning CSS. If nobody ever used IE for browsing again, CSS
would be a beautiful thing to use. But with IE around, it becomes a
mess of ugly hacks.

--

*** 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...
================================================== ====