CSS/HTML Why do YOU totally support one over the other?

[msswasstastic]

I still find it amazing how much heat HTML gets in this group. There
are times where you can look at a thread's title alone, and just know
that half the replies are going to be the pro-CSS people jumping in....
"Use CSS"... "Look into any size design"... "That tag is
depreciated."... etc...

A flamewar breaks out over the CENTER tag. Give me a break!

Until surfers see a difference in the rendered webpage between the
CENTER tag and it's CSS counterpart, there is no compelling reason to
use one over the other. This is true for every CSS and HTML tag.

CSS for the most part, as it stands right now is a TOOL to help
webmasters maintain pages a little easier. It has very little to do
with the end user in most cases.

You can create a page with CSS that looks exactly like it's HTML
counterpart and vice versa, and the only way to know which is which is
to look at the source code. A few exceptions apply on both sides, but
nothing major.

This is why at this point in time there is no clear winner in HTML vs.
CSS. It's just which ever one the individual webmaster feels most
comfortable using. I tend to use a mixture of both CSS and depreciated
HTML.

Many HTML tags have been depreciated by W3C, but that doesn't mean the
next release of MSIE isn't going to support them. As long as there are
pages floating around the internet using them, all the major browsers
will support them. CENTER has been depreciated, yet many years from now
it'll still work as it does today.

 

[gonebye]

A flamewar breaks out over the CENTER tag. Give me a break!
snip.......

CSS for the most part, as it stands right now is a TOOL to help>

webmasters maintain pages a little easier. It has very little to do> with
the end user in most cases.

Hi,
A dreamweaver hotspot, or a layer, is all that css-p is. I'd always used
html, but pressured on usenet, I dabbed in CSS. It's fast when re-styling
pages, or multiple pages.

The lack of valign or vertical-align is a problem, and you cant do valign
in a div with html, either. Positioning text and img in the same div, or div
in div, is another problem. (no centering) That said............

Positioning is easier with tables. I try to nest them only 2 deep (tables
in main table cells) Inserting divs is tricky, often throws the whole page
into a damn frenzy which takes 10 minutes to re-shuffle.

Take Care,
Homey

 

[Barbara de Zoete]

I still find it amazing how much heat HTML gets in this group. There
are times where you can look at a thread's title alone, and just know
that half the replies are going to be the pro-CSS people jumping in....
"Use CSS"... "Look into any size design"... "That tag is
depreciated."... etc...

A flamewar breaks out over the CENTER tag. Give me a break!

Aw, mama, look ... a baby troll!

--
,-- --<--@ -- PretLetters: 'woest wyf', met vele interesses: ----------.
| weblog | http://home.wanadoo.nl/b.de.zoete/_private/weblog.html |
| webontwerp | http://home.wanadoo.nl/b.de.zoete/html/webontwerp.html |
|zweefvliegen | http://home.wanadoo.nl/b.de.zoete/html/vliegen.html |
`-------------------------------------------------- --<--@ ------------'

 

[Henry]

Aw, mama, look ... a baby troll!

Trollers are are css supporters which, like you are, jumping all over
like a monkey with a purple face, when someone is trying to use html and
asking a question about it.

For **** sake, it is *alt.html*!

If you don't like it, set up alt.css and than you will answer to those,
and your advices will be reasonable and even wise.


Read it again and memorize it!


*alt.html*

 

[Tonnie]

Trollers are are css supporters which, like you are, jumping all over
like a monkey with a purple face, when someone is trying to use html and
asking a question about it.

For **** sake, it is *alt.html*!

If you don't like it, set up alt.css and than you will answer to those,
and your advices will be reasonable and even wise.

Read it again and memorize it!

*alt.html*

Henry you are jumping around like a baboon, showing your shiny red
ashole and shouting won't help you convince any one you are right.


Tonnie
(saying goodbye and have a nice walk with Richard en Bernhard)

 

[Karl Core]

I still find it amazing how much heat HTML gets in this group. There
are times where you can look at a thread's title alone, and just know
that half the replies are going to be the pro-CSS people jumping in....
"Use CSS"... "Look into any size design"... "That tag is
depreciated."... etc...

A flamewar breaks out over the CENTER tag. Give me a break!

Let's face it, you're a troll. That much is very clear based on your post.
What is also clear are the arguments for standards. They're out there on
the web, they're clearly and concisely presented in the archives of this
newsgroup and others (such as CIWAH). So, how is it that you, obviously
being a person who's read enough of these arguments, still don't seem to get
it?

Just because I feel like feeding the troll a little, I'll give a brief
outline of why standards are better

1) Better for the everyday user
Adhering to standards can result in an immediate benefit of reduced
download times. The importance of this cannot be overstated. Some studies
show that 60% of people will abandon an online transaction if the pages
download slowly. This has been estimated to translate into $4 billion in
lost e-commerce revenue each year.
A site properly made will also mean that it will have better cross-platform
compatibility. Considering that 5 different rendering engines are used to
surf the web using dozens of browsers (and versions of those browsers) on 3
platforms, attempting to test the site for rendering in every configuration
is next to impossible. Coding to standards then, is the only practical
solution for ensuring compatibility - now and in the future.

2) Better for the disabled
Web pages riddled with complex nested tables and spacer images wreak havoc
on persons with screen readers. Don't get me wrong, these days adaptive
technology can cope pretty well with nested tables, and as long as all those
silly spacers have empty alt text, you should be fine. But there's always
the issue of using the elements for their intended purpose. Doing so
increases accessibility. Proper markup gives alternative access devices the
ability to provide context to the page's content.

3) Better for the developer(s)
Personnel can come and go - but the code they create will stay behind. If
that code contains error-laden, invalid markup and "work-arounds" for
rendering in target browsers, it will cost the company money in personnel
time to find the bad markup and make it right. "Because standards are very
well documented, another person taking over some standard-compliant code can
hit the ground running - and will not need to become familiar with the
previous developer's coding practices." - Tristan Nitot, Netscape
Communications
(http://devedge.netscape.com/viewsource/2003/why-web-standards)

Regardless of who does the site maintenance, designing to standards ensures
shorter time spent hunting down problems. While poor rendering may very well
be a buggy browser, in most cases "rendering improperly" usually means
"something is wrong". Validation is one of the ways to uncover exactly what
the issue is. By maintaining a standards-compliant site, you are providing
yourself with insurance that if something goes awry, you will be able to
more easily and quickly get to the possible cause. Simply put, if you know
everything else is OK, you can focus any troubleshooting efforts on what has
been changed instead of looking at what else already existed that could have
caused or exacerbated the problem.

4) Better for the client (be they internal or external)
By authoring for standards, you're ensuring that your client's website will
work as well in tomorrow's browsers as it does today.
"Rendering fine" on current browsers is no guarantee that a site with
invalid markup will render fine in the future. Moreover, it is no guarantee
that a site will render fine (or at all) in the growing number of
non-traditional devices such as PDAs and cellular telephones. As browser
manufacturers make further efforts to make their products adhere to
standards, the point of "rendering fine" in target browsers becomes moot,
anyway. Standards-compliant markup will be even more of a guarantee that it
will work on all platforms than error-laden and proprietary markup.
How would you feel if YOU were the client and you paid someone to make a
site and as soon as the next version of IE came out, it completely fell to
pieces? How would you feel if you were the client and all of a sudden your
call center started getting flooded with calls saying "OMG ur web is teh
broked!"


In the end, writing to standards is part of doing a good job. Nothing more,
nothing less. If you bought a new house, would you want the modern circuit
breaker setup or knob & tubing electric? Then why wouldn't you use the same
criterion for a website?

 

[Richard]

I still find it amazing how much heat HTML gets in this group. There
are times where you can look at a thread's title alone, and just know
that half the replies are going to be the pro-CSS people jumping in....
"Use CSS"... "Look into any size design"... "That tag is
depreciated."... etc...

the "gods" of the group, you should know who they are, have yet to
understand that the name of the group is alt.html.
NOT alt.css.
They also fail to understand, that without html, CSS would be useless.
Mention tables in your post, and you get flamed royally even though what
you're using tables for is tabular data.

Then these same intelligent gods always want a url.
As if they are totally braindead and can't possibly use an editor.

Just what does deprecated mean anyway?
Oh you can't use that now.
Like somebody threw a switch and just turned it off so it doesn't work?
Then why do browsers accept it if it is not to be used?

CSS is like giving html a little extra pizzazz when needed.
Icing on the cake.
Put two cars of the same make model and color side by side.
One has no bells and whistles, the other has them all.
Do they drive any differently? Do they look different on the road?
One has a standard shift clutch, the other an automatic.
Yet they both drive down the road just the same.
That's the main difference between css and html.
Applying the bells and whistles.

In case you forgot, the name of this group is alt.html.
Where does it say css?

 

[Richard]

webmasters maintain pages a little easier. It has very little to do>
with
the end user in most cases.

Hi,
A dreamweaver hotspot, or a layer, is all that css-p is. I'd always
used
html, but pressured on usenet, I dabbed in CSS. It's fast when
re-styling
pages, or multiple pages.

The lack of valign or vertical-align is a problem, and you cant do
valign
in a div with html, either. Positioning text and img in the same div,
or div
in div, is another problem. (no centering) That said............

Positioning is easier with tables. I try to nest them only 2 deep
(tables
in main table cells) Inserting divs is tricky, often throws the whole
page
into a damn frenzy which takes 10 minutes to re-shuffle.

Take Care,
Homey

<div id="fool" style="text:align:center">
This is your text.
<div style="text:align:left">
This is more text.
<img src="bigfool.jpg">
</div>
</div>


www.validator.w3.org

validate your file and you'll save time.

 

[Richard]

Explain exactly what is a standard?
I write a web page and 10 different browsers show it 10 different ways.
One browser accepts a <layer> tag, another doesn't.
Microsoft comes along and only certain things will work with IE.
Is that a standard?

To me, a standard means that every cotton pickin browser will behave in the
same precise way. Period.

BTW, to me, you are a troll. So there.

 

[Steve Pugh]

the "gods" of the group, you should know who they are,

I'm sure that a lot of the people you're thinking about wish that they
were gods. Mainly so that they could perform a bit of the old smite...

have yet to understand that the name of the group is alt.html.
NOT alt.css.

This group has a broad remit (considering that it shouldn't actually
exist at all...) and covers a wide range of aspects of web authoring
not just HTML.

Your rant would be better applied to
comp.infosystems.www.authoring.html, if it were not for the fact that
there posts about CSS are redirected to
comp.infosystems.www.authoring.stylesheets

They also fail to understand, that without html, CSS would be useless.

Not true. CSS can be used to style other markup languages not just
HTML/XHTML. It isn't used to do so as often but it can.

Mention tables in your post, and you get flamed royally even though what
you're using tables for is tabular data.

Can you find a single post where a poster said up front that they were
using tabular data and then got flamed for using tables? Come on, give
the URLs to such a post in Google Groups.

Just what does deprecated mean anyway?
Oh you can't use that now.
Like somebody threw a switch and just turned it off so it doesn't work?
Then why do browsers accept it if it is not to be used?

Backwards compatibility. Something you should be thankful for as
things don't come much more backwards than you.

Steve

 

[Toby Inkster]

They also fail to understand, that without html, CSS would be useless.

Not so. It is possible to apply CSS to documents written in languages
other than HTML, and further to apply it to things other than documents.

For example, a settings file for a theoretical operating system:

button {
color: black;
background: silver;
border: 1px solid black;
}
button:active {
color: black;
background: yellow;
border: 1px solid red;
}
window {
color: black;
background: #eee;
border: 4px solid blue;
}
desktop {
color: white;
background: black url("nebula.jpeg") repeat scroll top left;
}
mousepointer {
color: lime;
}

Just what does deprecated mean anyway?
Oh you can't use that now.

You can use it, but it's probably a bad idea. Deprecated things are things
that will probably be left out of future standards, and may end up with no
browser support.

CSS is like giving html a little extra pizzazz when needed.
Icing on the cake.
True.

In case you forgot, the name of this group is alt.html.

Who cares? Clearly, in an HTML discussion group, related topics such as
CSS, PHP and HCI are going to come up.

 

[Michael Winter]

[snip]

For **** sake, it is *alt.html*!

What's your point? This group covers a multitude of topics, not limited to
browser scripting, server-side technologies, CSS and, inevitably, (x)HTML.
This is stated clearly enough in the group FAQ. Evidently, you haven't
read it.

Even if the sole remit of this group was HTML, that doesn't preclude a
poster from telling someone when they should use <insert technology here>
instead of mark-up. It happens in comp.lang.javascript often enough.

You don't like CSS, for whatever reason. Personally, I couldn't care less
for your reasons. Quit bitching about it.

[snip]

Mike

 

[Oli Filth]

What the **** do you expect? Do you really think that the competent HTML
users in this NG are going to say "Go ahead, use deprecated tags", or
"Fixed-layout is great, who cares if it looks shit" or "go on, bulk out
and obfuscate your HTML with loads of presentation attributes", or "who
cares if it doesn't validate"? Of course not, they're going to recommend
using HTML and CSS properly.

They also fail to understand, that without html, CSS would be useless.

And if Microsoft and Netscape hadn't gone and fouled things up, HTML
would be "useless" without CSS (at least in terms of making visually
appealing pages that display how the author intended).

Just what does deprecated mean anyway?
Oh you can't use that now.
Like somebody threw a switch and just turned it off so it doesn't work?
Then why do browsers accept it if it is not to be used?

"Deprecated" means it's on its way to being phased out of the spec
completely. And yes, in HTML Strict, you can't (shouldn't) use any
deprecated stuff. HTML Transitional only exists as a stepping stone for
people used to 90's jibberish HTML (the word "Transitional" in its name
would imply this!).

Get rid of all the bloat and proprietary tags that are floating about
(like <CENTER> and <FONT> and <MARQUEE>), and standardise everything
else, and HTML would be much easier for everyone, web authors and
browser designers alike. That's what the W3C is aiming towards by
marking things as "deprecated", they're not doing it just for kicks.

Browsers only accept it because they'd be foolish not to, cause most
people that write web pages (like you) don't know how to use HTML. For
instance, <B>Word<I>Word</B>Word</I> is invalid, but most browsers will
accept it. <SPAN>Some words <P>A paragraph</P> some more words</SPAN> is
invalid, but most browsers will cope. That doesn't make it correct; in
fact all it does is slow browsers down, and means that their executable
size is bigger. So yes, in the long run, invalid HTML is a detriment to
the end-user.

CSS is like giving html a little extra pizzazz when needed.
Icing on the cake.

No, it's doing things the way you were always supposed to do things,
i.e. separating semantics (HTML) from presentation (CSS).

In case you forgot, the name of this group is alt.html.
Where does it say css?

Where does it say "javascript", Richard?

 

[Oli Filth]

Explain exactly what is a standard?
I write a web page and 10 different browsers show it 10 different ways.
One browser accepts a <layer> tag, another doesn't.
Microsoft comes along and only certain things will work with IE.
Is that a standard?

No, you prick, because things like <LAYER>, or things that only work in
IE, are not part of the standard.
As for things that are part of the standard and are displayed
differently in different (compliant) browsers, you shouldn't expect
anything else, otherwise you're missing the point of HTML entirely.

To me, a standard means that every cotton pickin browser will behave in the
same precise way. Period.

You're missing the point. As above.

 

[Beauregard T. Shagnasty]

I write a web page and 10 different browsers show it 10 different
ways.

<lol> In your case, we can understand that line would be true!

 

[nice.guy.nige]

While the city slept, Richard ([email protected]) feverishly typed...

www.validator.w3.org

validate your file and you'll save time.

You'll save even more time by giving the correct URL!
http://validator.w3.org/ ;-)

Cheers,
Nige

 

[Nick Theodorakis]

On 30 Jan 2005 00:12:00 -0800, "(e-mail address removed)"


[...]

Until surfers see a difference in the rendered webpage between the
CENTER tag and it's CSS counterpart, there is no compelling reason to
use one over the other.

I realize I'm probably responding to a troll, but wottheheck...

There already is a difference in rendering. If you center a table
using margin: auto, then the table will be centered, leaving the
contents in the table cells left-aligned, in IE6, Mozilla, Opera, and
Safari (in standards mode). If you use <center> (or <div
align="center">) around the table, although all those browsers will
center the table, IE6 and Opera 7 will also center the table cell
contents, which may not (or may) be what the author intended. Thus
<center> has a certain DWIM quality about it, (in which case what the
author or browser "means" may vary) whereas the CSS method has a
precisely defined intended rendering. Nowadays, virtually all modern
browsers in common use (even IE6) will correctly center content using
CSS methods, whereas they differ in their interpretation of <center>.

Moreover, if you are trying to center other block elements such as
paragraphs between margins of equal width, thre is not other way of
doing it except with CSS.

Nick

 

[Disco Octopus]

I still find it amazing how much heat HTML gets in this group. There
are times where you can look at a thread's title alone, and just know
that half the replies are going to be the pro-CSS people jumping in....
"Use CSS"... "Look into any size design"... "That tag is
depreciated."... etc...

A flamewar breaks out over the CENTER tag. Give me a break!

I may be wrong, but it smells like you are trying to start another one
of those flamewars.

Until surfers see a difference in the rendered webpage between the
CENTER tag and it's CSS counterpart, there is no compelling reason to
use one over the other. This is true for every CSS and HTML tag.

The reasons I use CSS for my layout (not instead of HTML) over my HTML
are...

- All my customers are using my content management system which not
only allows the users to modify their content, but also create and
modify their page layout, styles, look, feel, etc. This can only be
done through styles. The user may do what they like in their style
sheet that is linked to each page. They can not do this with HTML.

- One of my customers sends out SMS messages to their clients to
inform them of specials and events. These SMS messages have url in
them, and within the clients PDA/telephone/etc the click the link, and
go to a page on their web site. Having CSS as the means for page
layout, means that they do not have to make any changes to their pages
for their site to be accessible on PADs.

- My father can't see very well. I have created a local style sheet
for him to be able to see any pages of any web site that he visits. It
makes it quite difficult to do this if the page that he is visiting
contains HTML layouts.

These are just a few reasons that I choose to use CSS for my page
design, and HTML for content only.

I quite frankly would prefer everyone else to use HTML for layout,
because when it comes down to getting the job, the customer would see
that my web sites are more accessible than everyone elses.

 

[Henry]

No, you prick, because things like <LAYER>, or things that only work in
IE, are not part of the standard.
As for things that are part of the standard and are displayed
differently in different (compliant) browsers, you shouldn't expect
anything else, otherwise you're missing the point of HTML entirely.

Since experts from MS and W3C can't sit together and set up standards
and both can't adhere to them, they BOTH are creating a wild jungle here.

If there is a law of the jungle, no one is right or wrong, because there
are no standard rules.

W3C goes their way, MS goes their way and unfortunately to W3C M$ is
still winning, because their browser is the most popular browser and
Front Page is the most often used tool for a web page design. Netscape
have lost miserably fight with MS and for a while IE and Front Page were
running the show.

Now we have FF and most of you are recommending Notepad for beginners to
design a web page.



Maybe, because in FP any newbie can design not bad looking web page in
20 minutes, that's what drives nuts W3C.

It would be nice, if only a small group coders would be able to make a
web page and charge as much as they want!?

It's not going to happen and that seems to be a goal.

Use ONLY css, so not so smart ones will break their teeth on it.

That's seems to be the goal but as always the common sense, logic and
simplicity will prevail.



If someone wants a complexity, there is a Flash and that's the future
anyway.

 

[Henry]

"Deprecated" means it's on its way to being phased out of the spec
completely. And yes, in HTML Strict, you can't (shouldn't) use any
deprecated stuff. HTML Transitional only exists as a stepping stone for
people used to 90's jibberish HTML (the word "Transitional" in its name
would imply this!).

Observing how things are going, at least 20 more years and ALL browsers
will still use <center><font>

and...






be...







prepared for the greatest heresy at alt html.............











here goes the devil himself....












<table>


:-O

Get rid of all the bloat and proprietary tags that are floating about
(like <CENTER> and <FONT> and <MARQUEE>), and standardise everything
else, and HTML would be much easier for everyone, web authors and
browser designers alike. That's what the W3C is aiming towards by
marking things as "deprecated", they're not doing it just for kicks.

More popular ADSL and bloat will be not important. Flash will take over
anyway.


html and css are here only preparing the way for a Flash.


Give it 2 more years and a bit more ADSL.