CSS2 Way Too Complicated

[Davmagic .Com]

http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-CSS2/

What were they thinking when they wrote it? The average person would
take way too much study to comprehend it let alone master it... Using
Tables for positioning is way easier... And don't forget that browser
support of CSS2 is still "sketchy" with all the bugs, and workarounds
necessary to get what you want...

Comments???

Web Design, Magic, Painting, Junking, More
http://www.davmagic.com
Paint A House
http://www.paintahouse.com
NOTE: This emailbox is CLOSED do NOT reply!!!

 

[Els]

http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-CSS2/

What were they thinking when they wrote it? The average
person would take way too much study to comprehend it let
alone master it... Using Tables for positioning is way
easier... And don't forget that browser support of CSS2 is
still "sketchy" with all the bugs, and workarounds
necessary to get what you want...

Comments???

Yes.
I find CSS2(.1) much easier than table layouts.
Even with the bugs.
Honest.

 

[Matthias Gutfeldt]

http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-CSS2/

What were they thinking when they wrote it? The average person would
take way too much study to comprehend it let alone master it...

CSS2 was published 12-May-1998. Today is 14-July-2004. If that isn't
enough time for study, maybe that average person should find himself a
different hobby. I heard fly fishing is very relaxing.

Comments???

You are years late. Slagging off CSS was all the rage four years ago.


Matthias

 

[Davmagic .Com]

From: (e-mail address removed) (Els)
Yes.
I find CSS2(.1) much easier than table
layouts. Even with the bugs.
Honest.

But what about older browsers that don't support CSS Layout mechanisms?
Like the current MSNTV Browser or NN4 ...?

Is Browser Sniffing going to be required for these? Why? With Tables for
Layout there's no worry about these older browsers... tables are
rendered quite well on them along with all the newer popular
browsers....?

If the W3C wants to "phaze-out" tables for layout by using CSS2, they
should have constructed it with more simplicity... the average webpage
builder will have to spend lots of time learning it, and be more
inclined to use tables because they are simpler to understand, and to
impliment... and with proper commenting in the source, along with use of
SSI, they are really quite easy to maintain...

Web Design, Magic, Painting, Junking, More
http://www.davmagic.com
Paint A House
http://www.paintahouse.com
NOTE: This emailbox is CLOSED do NOT reply!!!

 

[Els]

But what about older browsers that don't support CSS Layout
mechanisms? Like the current MSNTV Browser or NN4 ...?

I have a simple NN4 layout, and a bit more complicated
'current browser' stylesheet.

Is Browser Sniffing going to be required for these? Why?

I don't browser-sniff.

With Tables for Layout there's no worry about these older
browsers... tables are rendered quite well on them along
with all the newer popular browsers....?

But they have too much code. And I find them difficult to
implement in a fluid design. Unless you're talking about the
simple header, menu, content and footer layout of exactly 4
table cells. In which case I don't see what could possibly be
the difficulty using CSS instead?

If the W3C wants to "phaze-out" tables for layout by using
CSS2, they should have constructed it with more
simplicity... the average webpage builder

I've never met an average webpage builder. What do they look
like?

will have to spend lots of time learning it,

I found learning CSS fun, actually.

and be more inclined to use
tables because they are simpler to understand, and to
impliment...

Only if you have done them a lot before looking at CSS.
As I said, they're difficult for me. Especially with sliced
graphics, as I can't accept the text not being allowed to
resize at the surfer's will.

and with proper commenting in the source,
along with use of SSI, they are really quite easy to
maintain...

I disagree. I find them difficult to maintain.
I've done table layout before, and just adding a thumbnail
requires an extra column and/or an extra row, and depending on
the number of thumbnails you might even need a different
selection of colspans.

 

[Arondelle]

http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-CSS2/

What were they thinking when they wrote it? The average person would
take way too much study to comprehend it let alone master it... Using
Tables for positioning is way easier... And don't forget that browser
support of CSS2 is still "sketchy" with all the bugs, and workarounds
necessary to get what you want...

Comments???

Keep trying. If I can get it, then you can, too.

Arondelle

 

[Webcastmaker]

http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-CSS2/
What were they thinking when they wrote it? The average person would
take way too much study to comprehend it let alone master it... Using
Tables for positioning is way easier... And don't forget that browser
support of CSS2 is still "sketchy" with all the bugs, and workarounds
necessary to get what you want...

Why does it have to be an either or? Depending on the functionality,
the content, and what the design is, just use the best tool to get
the job done. Sometimes CSS, sometimes Tables, sometimes a
combination.

 

[SpaceGirl]

http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-CSS2/

What were they thinking when they wrote it? The average person would
take way too much study to comprehend it let alone master it... Using
Tables for positioning is way easier... And don't forget that browser
support of CSS2 is still "sketchy" with all the bugs, and workarounds
necessary to get what you want...

Comments???

Web Design, Magic, Painting, Junking, More
http://www.davmagic.com
Paint A House
http://www.paintahouse.com
NOTE: This emailbox is CLOSED do NOT reply!!!

Trust me, stick with it. As all the regulars in here and in sister group
s know, I've been driven up the wall by CSS over the last month, but I
dont regret it. Once you "get it", and take a step beyond just using CSS
for make text pretty, it's amazingly powerful stuff. For a newbie it'd
be pretty frightening I'd imagine. Even if you're not a newbie, it takes
work to get into a new way of putting pages together - but personally
I dont regret it! Now that I ahve two commercial sites CSS2 based, I'm
in the process of retro-fitting many of my other sites with "proper"
CSS2, rather than my half-arsed attempts over the last few years!

--


x theSpaceGirl (miranda)

# lead designer @ http://www.dhnewmedia.com #
# remove NO SPAM to email, or use form on website #

 

[Foofy (formerly known as Spaghetti)]

http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-CSS2/

What were they thinking when they wrote it? The average person would
take way too much study to comprehend it let alone master it... Using
Tables for positioning is way easier... And don't forget that browser
support of CSS2 is still "sketchy" with all the bugs, and workarounds
necessary to get what you want...

As Spacegirl mentioned, once you "get it" it all starts to make sense.
Your pages look better, load faster, your code looks better, you finally
learn all the nasty quirks of the various browsers, pounding out CSS rules
becomes as easy as pounding out complicated table layouts. And when you
have to change something? You change a few codes, in one file. You don't
start over again.

You can dig up tons of helpful links for learning CSS on the web, but
here's one that would have saved me some massive headaches when I was
trying to "get it":

http://www.mezzoblue.com/css/cribsheet/

 

[Toby Inkster]

You seem to have two seperate issues. I shall address them separately.

What were they thinking when they wrote it? The average person would
take way too much study to comprehend it let alone master it...

The specs aren't really meant as a learning aid, but as a definitive guide
for browser programmers and for those HTML document authors that already
have a good understanding of CSS.

If you want to learn CSS then look for a tutorial instead.

And don't forget that browser support of CSS2 is still "sketchy" with
all the bugs, and workarounds necessary to get what you want...

It can be a little sketchy around the peripheries, but the basics can be
relied upon in pretty much any graphical browser released in the last few
years. Certainly it's not too difficult to get most CSS layouts to work in
IE4+, Netscape 6+, Opera 3.6+, Konqueror 3+, Safari, Mozilla and Firefox.

 

[C A Upsdell]

http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-CSS2/

What were they thinking when they wrote it? The average person would
take way too much study to comprehend it let alone master it... Using
Tables for positioning is way easier... And don't forget that browser
support of CSS2 is still "sketchy" with all the bugs, and workarounds
necessary to get what you want...

Comments???

I recommend that you NOT use CSS. That will give the edge to the rest of us
in delivering effective websites.

 

[Jeff Thies]

CSS2 was published 12-May-1998. Today is 14-July-2004. If that isn't
enough time for study,

Sure is. Add another 6 years if you want to reread it.

Personally I've had an easier time getting through "Anna Karenina". A
lot of this is pretty obtuse the first pass through, and the second.

Ultimately it is the source of all CSS knowledge and if you really want
to know this you have to slog through it. Much of the "after market"
instruction is not quite right.

Jeff



maybe that average person should find himself a

 

[Neal]

http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-CSS2/

What were they thinking when they wrote it? The average person would
take way too much study to comprehend it let alone master it... Using
Tables for positioning is way easier... And don't forget that browser
support of CSS2 is still "sketchy" with all the bugs, and workarounds
necessary to get what you want...

Comments???

The dictionary is very tough to read through and memorize too, but does
that make language a bad idea?

It's a comprehensive reference, not a Dummies book. Get the Dummies book
if that's what you need to start. Then the reference will be useful.

 

[Beauregard T. Shagnasty]

Quoth the raven Davmagic .Com:

But what about older browsers that don't support CSS Layout
mechanisms? Like the current MSNTV Browser or NN4 ...?

I just ignore styling for those six people, and concentrate on modern
browsers. Those ancient/crappy browser users can, however, see all of
my content.

Is Browser Sniffing going to be required for these?

Not if you do it correctly.

the average webpage builder will have to spend lots of time
learning it,

That's true. It took me, an average guy, about three weeks to figure
out how to properly use CSS for layout. A couple of tutorials, and
reading these groups was enough.

and be more inclined to use tables because they are simpler to
understand,

...and harder to maintain.

Paint A House http://www.paintahouse.com

Now... I don't understand how to paint a house...

 

[Arondelle]

It's a comprehensive reference, not a Dummies book. Get the Dummies book
if that's what you need to start. Then the reference will be useful.

No, don't get the Dummies book ("Cascading Style Sheets For Dummies").
Amazon's reviewers give it only 3.5 stars for bad spelling and editing,
and for being more confusing than helpful.

Really.

As soon as I have money I don't know what else to do with there are
better books I'm considering, such as "Cascading Style Sheets by
Example" by Steve Callihan (http://snipurl.com/7rf0). Gets more stars,
anyway.

Arondelle

 

[DU]

But what about older browsers that don't support CSS Layout mechanisms?

This was covered by CSS recommendations. A good webpage design always
make sure that page relies on rich semantical markup code so that user
agents not being able to render CSS or particular style declarations
will still be able to render the markup. Hence the importance of using
the best markup code.

Like the current MSNTV Browser or NN4 ...?

NS 4 was designed more than 7 years ago. Next week, NS 7.2 will be out
next week. See for yourself (page in construction):

http://channels-stage.netscape.com/ns/browsers/download.jsp

Do you really want to be the only person left on this planet to use NS
4? MSN-TV has not being upgraded for years now. Even microsoft.com
website claims it does not render a lot of HTML 4.01 elements

http://developer.msntv.com/Develop/tags.asp

nor it does it very well for the supported elements.

Is Browser Sniffing going to be required for these? Why? With Tables for
Layout there's no worry about these older browsers... tables are
rendered quite well on them along with all the newer popular
browsers....?

MSN-TV requires specific dimensions for pages. Coding for MSN-TV
involves a lot more constraints than CSS support.

If the W3C wants to "phaze-out" tables for layout by using CSS2, they
should have constructed it with more simplicity...the average webpage
builder will have to spend lots of time learning it, and be more
inclined to use tables because they are simpler to understand, and to
impliment...

This is way way over-exaggerated. There are now lots of tutorials,
Quality Assurance/how-to guides, sites, books, usenet/discussion
newsgroups etc.. available to help out. Anyone can learn how to build a
tableless webpage easily and quickly.

The cost, time, efforts spent into maintaining a table-based design site
will always be greater than the efforts to upgrade your skills.
Download time and file download size for a tableless page is at least
50% smaller than the same file with tables. When nested tables are
involved, the gain can be as great as 80%.

DU

and with proper commenting in the source, along with use of

 

[brucie]

in post: <

But what about older browsers that don't support CSS Layout mechanisms?
Like the current MSNTV Browser or NN4 ...?

i know you don't like hearing this but MSNTV only has 8 users and one of
them is only because he forgot to turn it off 2 years ago.

a well designed css site is still very usable without css so rather than
trying to hold back new technologies/techniques and live in the past
something you will never be successful at, you should be directing your
energies to educating people to add links to turn off css for browsers
that don't have that ability built in.

its very easily added to existing sites

 

[Toby Inkster]

Next week, NS 7.2 will be out next week.

So it's out in two weeks' time?

 

[C.W.]

But what about older browsers that don't support CSS Layout mechanisms?
Like the current MSNTV Browser or NN4 ...?

Is Browser Sniffing going to be required for these? Why? With Tables for
Layout there's no worry about these older browsers... tables are
rendered quite well on them along with all the newer popular
browsers....?

I have 2 sites that use CSS for layout versus tables and is viewable
in NN4, in columns, without needing to use browser sniffing methods.

If the W3C wants to "phaze-out" tables for layout by using CSS2, they
should have constructed it with more simplicity... the average webpage
builder will have to spend lots of time learning it, and be more
inclined to use tables because they are simpler to understand, and to
impliment... and with proper commenting in the source, along with use of
SSI, they are really quite easy to maintain...

I consider myself to being an average webpage builder so here's my
opinion:

As with anyone that decides to learn HTML and then trying to use
tables for layout the first few times you try your hand at it -
patience is the key. I mean it took me a few months to learn HTML - so
it naturally took me a few months also to learn CSS.

Sure, there was some hair pulling when I tried to tackle creating a
tableless design - but in the end I feel it was worth the hair pulling
for those sites. And I seem to recall pulling at my hair a few times
learning tables. *shrug*

I will go along with some layouts may need a table layout versus a CSS
one [please not I said some and not all]; but if the average webpage
builder can learn enough HTML to make table layouts and use iframes
and/or SSI in with that [and we haven't mentioned javascript] - then
they can learn CSS. It isn't as complicated as some try to make it
sound to be.

Carol

 

[C.W.]

No, don't get the Dummies book ("Cascading Style Sheets For Dummies").
Amazon's reviewers give it only 3.5 stars for bad spelling and editing,
and for being more confusing than helpful.

Really.

As soon as I have money I don't know what else to do with there are
better books I'm considering, such as "Cascading Style Sheets by
Example" by Steve Callihan (http://snipurl.com/7rf0). Gets more stars,
anyway.

Just my personal opinion:

I never base my book selections on "stars" at Amazon, or reviews at
other online places like Barnes & Noble. Sometimes ratings [or stars]
are biased or you will read a review that writes glowing thoughts
about the book but the person clicked on 1 or 2 stars for the rating
for some odd reason. Look through some of the reviews in those places
and you will see some reviews are not exactly 'honest' or, like with
Photoshop CS, where some 'reviewers' that gave the product a 'rating'
admitted in their 'reviews' that they didn't even purchase the item.

I go to Borders or a Barnes & Noble that has that cute little
coffeeshop set up; select a few books - order myself a cup of coffee -
and browse through the books. If it seems confusing or too dry for my
taste, I set it aside and start leafing through the next one in the
stack. Well - at least that is my excuse I give the family for an hour
or two "quiet time" out of the house and I am sticking to it

Or there's always the public library where you can borrow a copy for a
week or two for a more indepth look-through to help decide which one
to purchase for home reference.

Carol