CSS Overblown

Discussion in 'HTML' started by JohnWMpls, May 29, 2005.

  1. JohnWMpls

    JohnWMpls Guest

    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
    JohnWMpls, May 29, 2005
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. JohnWMpls

    Rob_W Guest

    JohnWMpls wrote:
    > 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
    Rob_W, May 29, 2005
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. JohnWMpls wrote:

    > 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.

    --
    Blinky Linux Registered User 297263
    Killing all Usenet posts from Google Groups
    Info: http://blinkynet.net/comp/uip5.html
    *ALSO contains links for access to the NON-BETA GG archive interface*
    Blinky the Shark, May 29, 2005
    #3
  4. In article <>,
    says...
    > 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.

    --
    Hywel

    Kill the Crazy Frog
    http://www.petitiononline.com/crzyfrg/
    Hywel Jenkins, May 30, 2005
    #4
  5. JohnWMpls

    dorayme Guest

    > From: JohnWMpls <>

    > 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, May 30, 2005
    #5
  6. JohnWMpls

    dorayme Guest

    > From: dorayme <>

    >> From: JohnWMpls <>

    >
    >> 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
    dorayme, May 30, 2005
    #6
  7. JohnWMpls

    JohnWMpls Guest

    On Mon, 30 May 2005 10:18:54 +1000, dorayme <>
    wrote:

    =>> From: dorayme <>
    =>
    =>>> From: JohnWMpls <>
    =>>
    =>>> 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
    JohnWMpls, May 30, 2005
    #7
  8. JohnWMpls

    Mark Parnell Guest

    Previously in alt.html, JohnWMpls <> said:

    > 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. :-(

    --
    Mark Parnell
    http://www.clarkecomputers.com.au
    alt.html FAQ :: http://html-faq.com/
    Mark Parnell, May 30, 2005
    #8
  9. JohnWMpls

    SpaceGirl Guest

    JohnWMpls wrote:
    > On Mon, 30 May 2005 10:18:54 +1000, dorayme <>
    > wrote:
    >
    > =>> From: dorayme <>
    > =>
    > =>>> From: JohnWMpls <>
    > =>>
    > =>>> 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.
    SpaceGirl, May 31, 2005
    #9
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Eric
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    695
    clintonG
    Dec 24, 2004
  2. tom watson

    print.css and screen.css

    tom watson, Sep 9, 2003, in forum: HTML
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    450
    Jukka K. Korpela
    Sep 9, 2003
  3. Joshua Beall
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    407
    Bertilo Wennergren
    Dec 10, 2003
  4. Noozer
    Replies:
    10
    Views:
    2,032
    Mitja
    Oct 13, 2004
  5. Titus A Ducksass - AKA broken-record
    Replies:
    6
    Views:
    636
    Titus A Ducksass - AKA broken-record
    Nov 15, 2004
Loading...

Share This Page