CSS2 vs CSS1

[Michael Bulatovich]

Has anyone got a good link to a concise discussion of where things now stand
regarding these two?

e.g.

What browsers are compliant with one or the other?

What the adoption rate is of these browsers?

How are site developers dealing with what appears to me to be the
incompatibilities
of the two standards?

[Steve Pugh]

"Michael Bulatovich" <Pl****@dont.try> wrote:

Has anyone got a good link to a concise discussion of where things now stand
regarding these two?
Sorry, no.
e.g.

What browsers are compliant with one or the other?
IE supports some of CSS1 and a little bit of CSS2.
Other modern graphical browsers support (almost?) all of CSS1 and most
of the visual parts of CSS2.
What the adoption rate is of these browsers?
IE's progress is frozen for the time being.
Other browsers are moving towards supporting CSS2.1 and some parts of
CSS3. Those parts of CSS2 that are not being carried forward to 2.1
and 3 will probably never be supported if they aren't already.
How are site developers dealing with what appears to me to be the
incompatibilities of the two standards?

In most cases CSS2 (or CSS2.1) will be supported over CSS1. Did you
have some particular issues in mind?

Steve

--
"My theories appal you, my heresies outrage you,
I never answer letters and you don't like my tie." - The Doctor

Steve Pugh <st***@pugh.net> <http://steve.pugh.net/>

[Michael Bulatovich]

Thanks for the reply, Steve.
I'm just trying decide how to best use the limited time I have here on
earth.
I set up a site for my practice (CSS1) a few years ago now, and wondered
if I should put reworking it to CSS2 on my to do list because of newer
browser releases.

"Steve Pugh" <st***@pugh.net> wrote in message
news:41********************************@4ax.com...

In most cases CSS2 (or CSS2.1) will be supported over CSS1. Did you
have some particular issues in mind?

[Stan Brown]

"Steve Pugh" <st***@pugh.net> wrote in
comp.infosystems.www.authoring.stylesheets:

IE supports some of CSS1 and a little bit of CSS2.
Other modern graphical browsers

s/Other modern/Modern/

IE6 is how many years old now? More than a generation, in computer
terms?

I think we should stop according it the style of a "modern" browser.
I guess it's modern compared it to Netscape 4. :-)

--
Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Tompkins County, New York, USA
http://OakRoadSystems.com/
HTML 4.01 spec: http://www.w3.org/TR/html401/
validator: http://validator.w3.org/
CSS 2.1 spec: http://www.w3.org/TR/CSS21/
validator: http://jigsaw.w3.org/css-validator/

[Toby Inkster]

Michael Bulatovich wrote:

I set up a site for my practice (CSS1) a few years ago now, and wondered
if I should put reworking it to CSS2 on my to do list because of newer
browser releases.

Go with CSS 2.1. It is (counter-intuitively) better supported than 2.0.

--
Toby A Inkster BSc (Hons) ARCS
Contact Me ~ http://tobyinkster.co.uk/contact
Now Playing ~ ./catatonia/international_velvet/11_strange_glue.ogg

[Michael Bulatovich]

I'm not looking for work, Toby. ; )

I'm wondering if it's yet a problem to have CSS1 sheets on the site...

"Toby Inkster" <us**********@tobyinkster.co.uk> wrote in message
news:pa****************************@tobyinkster.co .uk...

Michael Bulatovich wrote:

I set up a site for my practice (CSS1) a few years ago now, and wondered
if I should put reworking it to CSS2 on my to do list because of newer
browser releases.

Go with CSS 2.1. It is (counter-intuitively) better supported than 2.0.

--
Toby A Inkster BSc (Hons) ARCS
Contact Me ~ http://tobyinkster.co.uk/contact
Now Playing ~ ./catatonia/international_velvet/11_strange_glue.ogg

[Alan J. Flavell]

On Mon, 6 Sep 2004, Michael Bulatovich blurts out atop a quote:

I'm not looking for work, Toby. ; )

I'm wondering if it's yet a problem to have CSS1 sheets on the site...

Eh? CSS1 works great with HTML/2.0 already[1], and causes no harm at
all to client agents which don't implement it.

So what's your real question?

cheers

[1] If there's any pedants left, they'll point out the one detail
which theoretically causes a problem for this. But in practice it
works - I tested it years ago.

[C A Upsdell]

"Michael Bulatovich" <Pl****@dont.try> wrote in message
news:b4*******************@news20.bellglobal.com.. .

I'm not looking for work, Toby. ; )

I'm wondering if it's yet a problem to have CSS1 sheets on the site...

There is no way to tell the browser that you want CSS implemented per CSS1.
But, if you use a DOCTYPE that triggers standards mode, modern browsers will
try to honour CSS2 better than older browsers. Indeed, Toby's advice was
good: go with 2.1, since it is closest to how real-world browsers now
implement CSS.

[Jukka K. Korpela]

"C A Upsdell" <cupsdell0311XXX@-@[e-mail]> wrote:

Indeed, Toby's advice was
good: go with 2.1, since it is closest to how real-world browsers now
implement CSS.

As informal advice to fellow authors, yes. However, in details (where the
&Evil; lives), CSS 2.1 contains quite a lot of stuff that isn't actually
supported by browsers. It was not _consistently_ designed to be "CSS as
currently implemented". It even contains some additions to CSS 2,
including things with virtually no support.

But I was recently faced with the question what should be written as a
description of required skills in authoring. When you write down such
things, e.g. when setting up requirements for hiring, or for students to
learn, there's a problem. CSS 2.1, the draft (now with status "Candidate
Recommendation"), itself says:
"It is inappropriate to cite this document as other than work in
progress."

--
Yucca, http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/

[Matt]

Alan J. Flavell wrote:

On Mon, 6 Sep 2004, Michael Bulatovich blurts out atop a quote:

I'm not looking for work, Toby. ; )

I'm wondering if it's yet a problem to have CSS1 sheets on the site...

Eh? CSS1 works great with HTML/2.0 already[1], and causes no harm at all
to client agents which don't implement it.

[1] If there's any pedants left, they'll point out the one detail which
theoretically causes a problem for this. But in practice it works - I
tested it years ago.

Do you mean the lack of <STYLE>? Because you can still use <LINK>.

Or maybe I'm not being pedantic enough today.

--
Matt
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----

[Steve Pugh]

Matt <no******@spam.matt.blissett.me.uk> wrote:

Alan J. Flavell wrote:

Eh? CSS1 works great with HTML/2.0 already[1], and causes no harm at all
to client agents which don't implement it.

[1] If there's any pedants left, they'll point out the one detail which
theoretically causes a problem for this. But in practice it works - I
tested it years ago.
Do you mean the lack of <STYLE>? Because you can still use <LINK>.

<style> is yucky. Even in versions of HTML that include it <link> is
usually preferable.
Or maybe I'm not being pedantic enough today.

Think about <link> and think about its attributes...

Steve

--
"My theories appal you, my heresies outrage you,
I never answer letters and you don't like my tie." - The Doctor

Steve Pugh <st***@pugh.net> <http://steve.pugh.net/>

[Toby Inkster]

Alan J. Flavell wrote:

If there's any pedants left, they'll point out the one detail which
theoretically causes a problem for [using CSS with HTML 2.0]. But in
practice it works - I tested it years ago.

Do you mean the lack of a style attribute and <style> element? Shouldn't
be a problem as HTML 2.0 has <link>.

The rel attribute is tricky -- HTML 2.0 defers specifying the allowed
values for it to a mythical "HTML Registration Authority". AFAIK this was
never set up, so perhaps this means that any value is illegal? OTOH,
perhaps the W3C is the authority, and we may use any values defined in
later standards (including "stylesheet").

In lieu of "rel=stylesheet", the Link header could be used, either in
conjunction with <meta http-equiv="..." content="..."> or as a real HTTP
header. AFAIK this is only supported by Gecko though.

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

[Alan J. Flavell]

On Tue, 7 Sep 2004, Toby Inkster wrote:

Alan J. Flavell wrote:

If there's any pedants left, they'll point out the one detail which
theoretically causes a problem for [using CSS with HTML 2.0]. But in
practice it works - I tested it years ago.
Do you mean the lack of a style attribute and <style> element?

No, I don't mean that. It's true that you have to work without use
of style element (which some would argue is no bad thing anyway), and
without use of the class attribute (which rather cramps what one can
do)...
Shouldn't
be a problem as HTML 2.0 has <link>.

The rel attribute is tricky -- HTML 2.0 defers specifying the allowed
values for it to a mythical "HTML Registration Authority". AFAIK this was
never set up, so perhaps this means that any value is illegal?

I hadn't thought of it that way ;-)

But as far as the 2.0 DTD is concerned, any syntactically appropriate
value is acceptable, including "stylesheet".

No, I was referring to the lack of a type= attribute for the link
element in 2.0, and thus the inability to code type="text/css". But
that didn't seem to cause a problem in practice, I found (back when I
tried it).

[C A Upsdell]

"Jukka K. Korpela" <jk******@cs.tut.fi> wrote in message
news:Xn*****************************@193.229.0.31. ..

"C A Upsdell" <cupsdell0311XXX@-@[e-mail]> wrote:

Indeed, Toby's advice was
good: go with 2.1, since it is closest to how real-world browsers now
implement CSS.
As informal advice to fellow authors, yes. However, in details (where the
&Evil; lives), CSS 2.1 contains quite a lot of stuff that isn't actually
supported by browsers. It was not _consistently_ designed to be "CSS as
currently implemented". It even contains some additions to CSS 2,
including things with virtually no support.

Agreed. I was giving practical advice. I would hope that all designers are
aware that no browser completely and correctly implements any standard, and
that, even if all did, there would still be differences in rendering because
some aspects of the standard are explicitly up to the user agent.
But I was recently faced with the question what should be written as a
description of required skills in authoring. When you write down such
things, e.g. when setting up requirements for hiring, or for students to
learn, there's a problem. CSS 2.1, the draft (now with status "Candidate
Recommendation"), itself says:
"It is inappropriate to cite this document as other than work in
progress."

Yes. But. IMO 2.1 is the best target to aim for at THIS point in time.

[Matt]

Steve Pugh wrote:

Matt <no******@spam.matt.blissett.me.uk> wrote:

Alan J. Flavell wrote:

Eh? CSS1 works great with HTML/2.0 already[1], and causes no harm at
all to client agents which don't implement it.

[1] If there's any pedants left, they'll point out the one detail which
theoretically causes a problem for this. But in practice it works - I
tested it years ago.

Do you mean the lack of <STYLE>? Because you can still use <LINK>.

<style> is yucky. Even in versions of HTML that include it <link> is
usually preferable.

Or maybe I'm not being pedantic enough today.

Think about <link> and think about its attributes...

<http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/html-spec/html-spec_5.html#SEC5.2.4>

| The LINK element [...] has the same attributes as the A element (see
| section Anchor: A).

<http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/html-spec/html-spec_5.html#SEC5.7.3>

| The A element [...] HREF [...] NAME [...] TITLE [...] REL [...] REV
| [...] URN [...] METHODS

MEDIA is optional, so we're ok. We don't have TYPE, but is that actually
required?

<http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/present/styles.html#h-14.3.2>

| Authors specify external style sheets with the following attributes of
| the LINK element: [...] Set the value of the type attribute to indicate
| the language of the linked (style sheet) resource. This allows the user
| agent to avoid downloading a style sheet for an unsupported style sheet
| language.

Um... yes, it is. Seems I misread this the first time ;)

Consider me out-pedanted.

--
Matt
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----