Are CSS over ???

[hholidayy]

Hi,
I'm very new to web designing
I'm designing my first web site for a friend of mind that has a small
business
I recently finished a book on HTML and started playing in Dreamweaver MX
Then realize there was a faster and more efficient way to do things with CSS

So I started self-learning CSS, about a week ago
Today, while I was studying my CSS book at work...a programmer from my firm
said to me...

" What the hell are you doing....CSS !!!, those are over, you're loosing
your time! You should learn XML and XSL, that's the new thing !!!!!"

I tried to find info on the Web about "The Famous Death of CSS !!!!" and I
realy don't come up with anything.
I also took a brief look at the XML "world", and I don't really see it has a
replacement but more has a add-on; a supplement to the HTML-CSS world
already in place.

Now, my friend "programming genius i know it all"...was he a lunatic that
should stay in his Delphi World, or am I miss something here and loosing my
time learning CSS????

Thank you for listening and for your help

Ray

[Erik Funkenbusch]

On Wed, 01 Oct 2003 23:56:20 GMT, hholidayy wrote:

Now, my friend "programming genius i know it all"...was he a lunatic that
should stay in his Delphi World, or am I miss something here and loosing my
time learning CSS????

Yes, you friend is a lunatic. Or, just mistaken.

CSS is not dead, nor is it going to be dead. CSS3 is in development, but
don't worry, anything you learn with CSS1 and CSS2 will likely carry
forward.

HTML is dying. HTML 4.01 is the last version of HTML, it will be replaced
with XHTML, though CSS will still be used with it.

[Christophe Vanfleteren]

hholidayy wrote:

Hi,
I'm very new to web designing
I'm designing my first web site for a friend of mind that has a small
business
I recently finished a book on HTML and started playing in Dreamweaver MX
Then realize there was a faster and more efficient way to do things with
CSS

So I started self-learning CSS, about a week ago
Today, while I was studying my CSS book at work...a programmer from my
firm said to me...

" What the hell are you doing....CSS !!!, those are over, you're loosing
your time! You should learn XML and XSL, that's the new thing !!!!!"

I tried to find info on the Web about "The Famous Death of CSS !!!!" and I
realy don't come up with anything.
I also took a brief look at the XML "world", and I don't really see it has
a replacement but more has a add-on; a supplement to the HTML-CSS world
already in place.

Now, my friend "programming genius i know it all"...was he a lunatic that
should stay in his Delphi World, or am I miss something here and loosing
my time learning CSS????
Short: no, your friend is wrong.

And css can be used to style pure xml. Even if you use xml and xlst, you'll
still have to transform your xml to something a human can easily read,
using xhtml/css.

Thank you for listening and for your help

Ray

--
mvg,
Christophe Vanfleteren

[Mark Parnell]

Sometime around Wed, 01 Oct 2003 23:56:20 GMT, hholidayy is reported to
have stated:

Hi,
G'day.
I'm very new to web designing
We all were once. :-)
I'm designing my first web site for a friend of mind that has a small
business
Sounds like a good place to start.
I recently finished a book on HTML and started playing in Dreamweaver MX
As long as you understand what you are doing... :-)
Then realize there was a faster and more efficient way to do things with CSS

Good.
So I started self-learning CSS, about a week ago
Excellent.
Today, while I was studying my CSS book at work...a programmer from my firm
said to me...

" What the hell are you doing....CSS !!!, those are over, you're loosing
your time! You should learn XML and XSL, that's the new thing !!!!!"

Idiot. Not that there is anything wrong with XML and XSL, but it will be a
while yet before they are widely used.
I tried to find info on the Web about "The Famous Death of CSS !!!!" and I
realy don't come up with anything.
Unsurprising, really. Browsers are still catching up with CSS, let alone
getting beyond it.

Now, my friend "programming genius i know it all"...was he a lunatic that
should stay in his Delphi World,
Aren't all programmers lunatics? :-P
or am I miss something here and loosing my
time learning CSS????

Not at all. CSS will be around for a while yet.
Thank you for listening and for your help

You're welcome.

BTW: When crossposting, please set appropriate follow-ups (in this case I
have set them to ciwas)

--
Mark Parnell
http://www.clarkecomputers.com.au

[e n | c k m a]

> Now, my friend "programming genius i know it all"...was he a lunatic that

should stay in his Delphi World, or am I miss something here and loosing my time learning CSS????

http://www.w3.org/Style/XSL/WhatIsXSL.html

Read the FAQ at the above link.

[Jeff North]

On Wed, 01 Oct 2003 23:56:20 GMT, in
comp.infosystems.www.authoring.stylesheets "hholidayy"
<hh*******@hotmail.com> wrote:

| Hi,
| I'm very new to web designing
| I'm designing my first web site for a friend of mind that has a small
| business
| I recently finished a book on HTML and started playing in Dreamweaver MX
| Then realize there was a faster and more efficient way to do things with CSS
|
| So I started self-learning CSS, about a week ago
| Today, while I was studying my CSS book at work...a programmer from my firm
| said to me...
|
| " What the hell are you doing....CSS !!!, those are over, you're loosing
| your time! You should learn XML and XSL, that's the new thing !!!!!"
Tell your programmer friend to stick his head back in the sand.
HTML/XML = information to be displayed
CSS/XSL = presentation of the material

I would only use XML/XSL if the material was destined for other media.
| I tried to find info on the Web about "The Famous Death of CSS !!!!" and I
| realy don't come up with anything.
| I also took a brief look at the XML "world", and I don't really see it has a
| replacement but more has a add-on; a supplement to the HTML-CSS world
| already in place.
|
| Now, my friend "programming genius i know it all"...was he a lunatic that
| should stay in his Delphi World, or am I miss something here and loosing my
| time learning CSS????
|
| Thank you for listening and for your help
|
| Ray
|

---------------------------------------------------------------
jn****@yourpantsbigpond.net.au : Remove your pants to reply
---------------------------------------------------------------

[XSL Work Group]

CSS Work Group:

All your base are belong to us!

XSL Work Group

[James Thornton]

hholidayy wrote:

" What the hell are you doing....CSS !!!, those are over, you're loosing
your time! You should learn XML and XSL, that's the new thing !!!!!"

So why does the w3c XSL Web page (http://www.w3.org/Style/XSL/) make
pervasive use of CSS in its HTML source? It is because XSL cannot be
used with HTML (See "Why two Style Sheet languages?",
http://www.w3.org/Style/#why).

XSL is used for transforming XML data into a format suitable for
presentation on a given media, such as XHTML/CSS. Note, that XSL doesn't
have to transform the data into XHTML -- it could transform the data
into some other presentation format.

[Philipp Lenssen]

hholidayy wrote:

" What the hell are you doing....CSS !!!, those are over, you're
loosing your time! You should learn XML and XSL, that's the new
thing !!!!!"

To paraphrase the W3C, use CSS when you can, and XSL(T) when you must.
XSL doesn't replace CSS, as much as CSS didn't replace HTML -- the two
technologies work side by side. Even though XSLT might make it easier
to spit out browser-specific workaround-HTML. But you pretty much only
need that for Netscape 4 anyway.
You can also combine the two. I do, and it keeps things easy to manage.
By the way, CSS is media-separated. XSLT is server-side when you want
it to work cross-browser today. CSS makes sense on the client-side
today.

So, your friend is wrong. Keep doing CSS. Then, you can also learn all
the XML/ XSL you like (XPath, XSLT).

--
Google Blogoscoped
http://blog.outer-court.com

[David Dorward]

Mark Parnell wrote:

Now, my friend "programming genius i know it all"...was he a lunatic that
should stay in his Delphi World,

Aren't all programmers lunatics? :-P

I'm not! Well, except at the full moon.

--
David Dorward http://dorward.me.uk/

[William Tasso]

David Dorward wrote:

Mark Parnell wrote:

Now, my friend "programming genius i know it all"...was he a
lunatic that should stay in his Delphi World,

Aren't all programmers lunatics? :-P

I'm not! Well, except at the full moon.

isn't that the definition?

;o)

--
William Tasso - http://WilliamTasso.com

[David Dorward]

William Tasso wrote:

Aren't all programmers lunatics? :-P

I'm not! Well, except at the full moon.

isn't that the definition?

Damn, someone noticed. :)

--
David Dorward http://dorward.me.uk/

[Stephen Poley]

On Wed, 1 Oct 2003 19:35:04 -0500, Erik Funkenbusch
<er**@despam-funkenbusch.com> wrote:

CSS is not dead, nor is it going to be dead.
Agreed.
HTML is dying. HTML 4.01 is the last version of HTML, it will be replaced
with XHTML,

That's doubtful. Consider how long it is taking to replace HTML tag soup
with HTML 4 - even though there are very good reasons for doing so. How
long is it then going to take to replace HTML with XHTML, given that
there are hardly any reasons for doing so?

I think HTML will still be around for a very long time.

--
Stephen Poley

http://www.xs4all.nl/~sbpoley/webmatters/

[Stanimir Stamenkov]

Erik Funkenbusch wrote:

HTML is dying. HTML 4.01 is the last version of HTML, it will be replaced
with XHTML, though CSS will still be used with it.

XHTML is just HTML formatted as XML. HTML defines the functionality
(forms, image/object maps, etc.) which XHTML should do, too.

--
Stanimir

[Bryce (Work)]

On Wed, 01 Oct 2003 23:56:20 GMT, "hholidayy" <hh*******@hotmail.com>
wrote:

So I started self-learning CSS, about a week ago
Today, while I was studying my CSS book at work...a programmer from my firm
said to me...

" What the hell are you doing....CSS !!!, those are over, you're loosing
your time! You should learn XML and XSL, that's the new thing !!!!!"

You're programmer doesn't know what he/she is talking about.

[Eroom Tam]

> So I started self-learning CSS, about a week ago

Today, while I was studying my CSS book at work...a programmer from my firm
said to me...

" What the hell are you doing....CSS !!!, those are over, you're loosing
your time! You should learn XML and XSL, that's the new thing !!!!!"

To play Devil's Advocate (since I work with some programming lunatics
myself), perhaps what he meant was the "new thing" part. As is "CSS is
a well-known language, but learning XML/XSL will set you apart since it
is a fairly new technology and will open doors for you", like knowing
ASP in 1997.

That said, learn CSS inside and out since it is very powerful when used
correctly (check out http://www.csszengarden.com for an example). I
don't know XSL, but I imagine CSS would be a good groundwork.

Finally, developers tend to be on the cutting edge and can't understand
why everyone else isn't. For example, way back in 1999 some developers
I knew *insisted* that *no one* used Netscape 4.7 anymore, all screens
were at least 1024 x 768, and nobody used dial-up (and any one who
didn't fit this criteria was worth losing as a customer). Guys I know
today develop sites that only work properly in Mozilla b/c that's what
everyone *should* use.

Welcome to our wacky, inside-out world.

[Erik Funkenbusch]

On Thu, 02 Oct 2003 13:11:46 +0200, Stephen Poley wrote:

HTML is dying. HTML 4.01 is the last version of HTML, it will be replaced
with XHTML,

That's doubtful. Consider how long it is taking to replace HTML tag soup
with HTML 4 - even though there are very good reasons for doing so. How
long is it then going to take to replace HTML with XHTML, given that
there are hardly any reasons for doing so?

I think HTML will still be around for a very long time.

I didn't say it's death wouldn't be long and drawn out :)

Indeed, HTML will be viable for many years to come, but XHTML is where
things are going.

[David Dorward]

Eroom Tam wrote:

Guys I know today develop sites that only work properly in Mozilla b/c
that's what everyone *should* use.

My site only works properly in Mozilla... but it still works in just about
every browser out there.

Mozilla can do things that no other browser can, that's no reason to avoid
using those features if they have no side effects in weaker browsers.

--
David Dorward http://dorward.me.uk/

[Eroom Tam]

David Dorward wrote:

Eroom Tam wrote:

Guys I know today develop sites that only work properly in Mozilla b/c
that's what everyone *should* use.

My site only works properly in Mozilla... but it still works in just about
every browser out there.

Mozilla can do things that no other browser can, that's no reason to avoid
using those features if they have no side effects in weaker browsers.

Gracefully degrading on older (and less capable) browsers in fine (and,
in fact, recommended and a hell of a talent to have). To code to one and
only one browser and ignore the reprecussions on other browsers because
you feel it is what everyone should use is another.

[hholidayy]

Thank you all for you help

You confirmed my believes and reassured me
At least I know now that I'm not loosing my time learning CSS

(BTW: The HTML book I finished was actually a HTML/XHTML book, so at least
my base is ok)

You were very helpful

Thanks again

Ray

[Henri Sivonen]

In article <u0****************************@40tude.net>,
Mark Parnell <we*******@clarkecomputers.com.au> wrote:

Not that there is anything wrong with XML and XSL

But there is something wrong with XSL!

* Having a syntax for formatting objects makes it possible to
deliver formatting objects over the network. This is an
accessibility problem compared to delivering structurally
marked up content with an optional style sheet.
http://people.opera.com/howcome/1999/foch.html

* CSS selectors can be (and have been) efficiently implemented
even when there are dynamic changes to the document tree.
XPath selectors, on the other hand, can have dependencies
that make matching inefficient.
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/...3Jun/0118.html

* You can't make changes to the input tree and have the changes
reflected in the output tree without retransforming the
entire document after each change.

* Although the XML syntax is nice for marking up text, it is
awkward as a programming language syntax. (YMMV, of course.)

--
Henri Sivonen
hs******@iki.fi
http://www.iki.fi/hsivonen/
Mozilla Web Author FAQ: http://mozilla.org/docs/web-developer/faq.html

[Shawn K. Quinn]

[followup trimmed to c.i.w.a.stylesheets]

hholidayy wrote:

Hi,
I'm very new to web designing
I'm designing my first web site for a friend of mind that has a small
business
I recently finished a book on HTML and started playing in Dreamweaver MX
Then realize there was a faster and more efficient way to do things with
CSS

So I started self-learning CSS, about a week ago
Today, while I was studying my CSS book at work...a programmer from my
firm said to me...

" What the hell are you doing....CSS !!!, those are over, you're loosing
your time! You should learn XML and XSL, that's the new thing !!!!!"
XML and XSL do not replace CSS. Neither does CSS replace HTML. They are
completely different technologies designed to fulfill completely different
roles.
I tried to find info on the Web about "The Famous Death of CSS !!!!" and I
realy don't come up with anything.
I also took a brief look at the XML "world", and I don't really see it has
a replacement but more has a add-on; a supplement to the HTML-CSS world
already in place.
XML is a replacement for SGML, not HTML.

CSS is going to be with us for a good long while.
Now, my friend "programming genius i know it all"...was he a lunatic that
should stay in his Delphi World, or am I miss something here and loosing
my time learning CSS????

He's a lunatic who should stick to his own world.

--
Shawn K. Quinn