CSS Overblown

[JohnWMpls]

I get the feeling that css is getting out of control. I code at the
HTML level and use css to simplify the coding and keep visual uniformity
in a site. But I look at css code created by some conversion programs
and, wow, the result is precise but what an excess of code - the
overcomplexity makes it difficult to read and understand the code.

A year or so ago I started using MS Word 2003 to read .doc files people
sent me - to save as HTML for posting. Files sizes ballooned - full of
css stuff. I went back to using MS Word 98 for this - nice clean HTML
code. {g}

JohnW-Mpls

 

[Rob_W]

I get the feeling that css is getting out of control. I code at the
HTML level and use css to simplify the coding and keep visual uniformity
in a site. But I look at css code created by some conversion programs
and, wow, the result is precise but what an excess of code - the
overcomplexity makes it difficult to read and understand the code.

A year or so ago I started using MS Word 2003 to read .doc files people
sent me - to save as HTML for posting. Files sizes ballooned - full of
css stuff. I went back to using MS Word 98 for this - nice clean HTML
code. {g}

JohnW-Mpls

Don't blame css, blame Word

 

[Blinky the Shark]

I get the feeling that css is getting out of control. I code at the
HTML level and use css to simplify the coding and keep visual
uniformity in a site. But I look at css code created by some
conversion programs and, wow, the result is precise but what an excess
of code - the overcomplexity makes it difficult to read and understand
the code.

A year or so ago I started using MS Word 2003 to read .doc files
people sent me - to save as HTML for posting. Files sizes ballooned
- full of css stuff. I went back to using MS Word 98 for this - nice
clean HTML code. {g}

None of that is an indictment of CSS. All of that is an indictment of
Word.

 

[Hywel Jenkins]

I get the feeling that css is getting out of control. I code at the
HTML level and use css to simplify the coding and keep visual uniformity
in a site. But I look at css code created by some conversion programs
and, wow, the result is precise but what an excess of code - the
overcomplexity makes it difficult to read and understand the code.

A year or so ago I started using MS Word 2003 to read .doc files people
sent me - to save as HTML for posting. Files sizes ballooned - full of
css stuff. I went back to using MS Word 98 for this - nice clean HTML
code. {g}

Whooosh! You seem to be suggesting that you trusted MS Word 03's
capability to produce sensible code. You silly boy.

 

[dorayme]

A year or so ago I started using MS Word 2003 to read .doc files people
sent me - to save as HTML for posting. Files sizes ballooned - full of
css stuff. I went back to using MS Word 98 for this - nice clean HTML
code. {g}

There are one or two docs for which I have used MS Word 98 to get a rough
HTML layout for and it is a mess. But a *much better mess* to clean up than
with later MS Words... So, I sort of agree with you, seriously.

dorayme

 

[dorayme]

There are one or two docs for which I have used MS Word 98 to get a rough
HTML layout for and it is a mess. But a *much better mess* to clean up than
with later MS Words... So, I sort of agree with you, seriously.

I should add, I suppose, that I agree with comments by others (now that I
have read them) that css is not at fault so much as the crazy use of it in
later MS Word. To tell the truth, 98 is better because one can then css
style the "cleaner" html that you see in a more rational manner.

dorayme

 

[JohnWMpls]

=>> From: dorayme <[email protected]>
=>
=>>> From: JohnWMpls <[email protected]>
=>>
=>>> A year or so ago I started using MS Word 2003 to read .doc files people
=>>> sent me - to save as HTML for posting. Files sizes ballooned - full of
=>>> css stuff. I went back to using MS Word 98 for this - nice clean HTML
=>>> code. {g}
=>>
=>>
=>> There are one or two docs for which I have used MS Word 98 to get a rough
=>> HTML layout for and it is a mess. But a *much better mess* to clean up than
=>> with later MS Words... So, I sort of agree with you, seriously.
=>
=>
=>I should add, I suppose, that I agree with comments by others (now that I
=>have read them) that css is not at fault so much as the crazy use of it in
=>later MS Word. To tell the truth, 98 is better because one can then css
=>style the "cleaner" html that you see in a more rational manner.
=>
=>dorayme

Interesting - not CSS but Word. It's maybe really Microsoft. What
triggered my comment was a conversion I did from MS's Publisher to HTML -
and if you think Word 2003 was bad,....! {g}

But MS is maybe not alone. Mozilla's new Composer provides the option for
code in css or HTML and it is defaulted to css.

I think css is great. I maintain a few sites with a couple hundred pages
each and just one simple 12-15 line .css file per site sure saves a lot of
coding on all the pages.

I'm an old guy and I'm guessing that some newer people think css is the
only way - regardless of how complicated it can make things.

JohnW-Mpls

 

[Mark Parnell]

What
triggered my comment was a conversion I did from MS's Publisher to HTML -
and if you think Word 2003 was bad,....! {g}

I've seen Publisher's output, and yes - it's horrendous. Ever tried
Excel? Richard (rf) had a page done in Excel up at one point...wonder
whether I can find the URL...?

<a few minutes later>

Ah, found the URL, but the page is no longer up. :-(

 

[SpaceGirl]

=>> From: dorayme <[email protected]>
=>
=>>> From: JohnWMpls <[email protected]>
=>>
=>>> A year or so ago I started using MS Word 2003 to read .doc files people
=>>> sent me - to save as HTML for posting. Files sizes ballooned - full of
=>>> css stuff. I went back to using MS Word 98 for this - nice clean HTML
=>>> code. {g}
=>>
=>>
=>> There are one or two docs for which I have used MS Word 98 to get a rough
=>> HTML layout for and it is a mess. But a *much better mess* to clean up than
=>> with later MS Words... So, I sort of agree with you, seriously.
=>
=>
=>I should add, I suppose, that I agree with comments by others (now that I
=>have read them) that css is not at fault so much as the crazy use of it in
=>later MS Word. To tell the truth, 98 is better because one can then css
=>style the "cleaner" html that you see in a more rational manner.
=>
=>dorayme

Interesting - not CSS but Word. It's maybe really Microsoft. What
triggered my comment was a conversion I did from MS's Publisher to HTML -
and if you think Word 2003 was bad,....! {g}

But MS is maybe not alone. Mozilla's new Composer provides the option for
code in css or HTML and it is defaulted to css.

I think css is great. I maintain a few sites with a couple hundred pages
each and just one simple 12-15 line .css file per site sure saves a lot of
coding on all the pages.

I'm an old guy and I'm guessing that some newer people think css is the
only way - regardless of how complicated it can make things.

JohnW-Mpls

CSS *is* the only way if you want as much control as possible over the
end users "experience" (aguably, along with CSS and Flash). But all of
these technologys can be misused - just like HTML itself. If a program
(or a designer!) generates crappy HTML it's not the fault of HTML either

Microsoft Office apps are well known for generating awful HTML from the
psuedo-XML format the documents are stored in natively. You should avoid
using them for ANYTHING other than office type work. If you want to
publish to WWW, convert your docs to PDF and simply link to them from a
hand-designed page - or, if you know your stuff, use DreamWeaver, but
again be warned, if you are inexperienced you'll make a mess in that too.

CSS doesn't have to be complex to work well... we have some pretty HUGE
sites with less than 1kb of fairly simple CSS controlling the entire
look & feel. The resulting UI is complex and powerful, but the CSS is
simple.