CSS2 Way Too Complicated

Discussion in 'HTML' started by Davmagic .Com, Jul 14, 2004.

  1. 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!!!
    Davmagic .Com, Jul 14, 2004
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Davmagic .Com

    Els Guest

    Davmagic .Com wrote:

    > 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.

    --
    Els
    http://locusmeus.com/
    Sonhos vem. Sonhos vão. O resto é imperfeito.
    - Renato Russo -
    Els, Jul 14, 2004
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Davmagic .Com wrote:
    > 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
    Matthias Gutfeldt, Jul 14, 2004
    #3

  4. >From: (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!!!
    Davmagic .Com, Jul 14, 2004
    #4
  5. Davmagic .Com

    Els Guest

    Davmagic .Com wrote:

    >>From: (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 ...?


    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.

    --
    Els
    http://locusmeus.com/
    Sonhos vem. Sonhos vão. O resto é imperfeito.
    - Renato Russo -
    Els, Jul 14, 2004
    #5
  6. Davmagic .Com

    Arondelle Guest

    Davmagic .Com wrote:
    > 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
    --
    ===========================================================
    To email me, empty the pond with a net
    Arondelle, Jul 14, 2004
    #6
  7. Davmagic .Com

    Webcastmaker Guest

    In article <>,
    says...
    > 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.
    --
    WebcastMaker
    The easiest and most affordable way to create
    Web casts, or put presentations on the Web.
    www.webentations.com
    Webcastmaker, Jul 14, 2004
    #7
  8. Davmagic .Com

    SpaceGirl Guest

    Davmagic .Com wrote:
    > 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 #
    SpaceGirl, Jul 14, 2004
    #8
  9. On Wed, 14 Jul 2004 10:00:59 -0400, Davmagic .Com <> wrote:

    > 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/

    --
    Download Opera now or I'll beat you with a stick: http://opera.com/
    Foofy (formerly known as Spaghetti), Jul 14, 2004
    #9
  10. Davmagic .Com

    Toby Inkster Guest

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

    Davmagic .Com wrote:
    > 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.

    --
    Toby A Inkster BSc (Hons) ARCS
    Contact Me ~ http://tobyinkster.co.uk/contact
    Now Playing ~ ./cracker_-_another_song_about_the_rain.ogg
    Toby Inkster, Jul 14, 2004
    #10
  11. Davmagic .Com

    C A Upsdell Guest

    "Davmagic .Com" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > 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.
    C A Upsdell, Jul 14, 2004
    #11
  12. Davmagic .Com

    Jeff Thies Guest

    Matthias Gutfeldt wrote:
    > Davmagic .Com wrote:
    >
    >> 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,



    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
    > 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
    >
    Jeff Thies, Jul 14, 2004
    #12
  13. Davmagic .Com

    Neal Guest

    On Wed, 14 Jul 2004 10:00:59 -0400, Davmagic .Com <> wrote:

    > 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.
    Neal, Jul 14, 2004
    #13
  14. 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...

    --
    -bts
    -This space intentionally left blank.
    Beauregard T. Shagnasty, Jul 14, 2004
    #14
  15. Davmagic .Com

    Arondelle Guest

    Neal wrote:
    > 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
    --
    ===========================================================
    To email me, empty the pond with a net
    Arondelle, Jul 14, 2004
    #15
  16. Davmagic .Com

    DU Guest

    Davmagic .Com wrote:

    >>From: (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?


    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
    > 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!!!
    >
    DU, Jul 14, 2004
    #16
  17. Davmagic .Com

    brucie Guest

    in post: <news:>
    "Davmagic .Com" <> said:

    > 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

    --
    b r u c i e
    brucie, Jul 14, 2004
    #17
  18. Davmagic .Com

    Toby Inkster Guest

    DU wrote:

    > Next week, NS 7.2 will be out next week.


    So it's out in two weeks' time?

    --
    Toby A Inkster BSc (Hons) ARCS
    Contact Me ~ http://tobyinkster.co.uk/contact
    Toby Inkster, Jul 14, 2004
    #18
  19. Davmagic .Com

    C.W. Guest

    On Wed, 14 Jul 2004 10:38:18 -0400, (Davmagic .Com)
    wrote:

    >
    >>From: (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....?


    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., Jul 14, 2004
    #19
  20. Davmagic .Com

    C.W. Guest

    On Wed, 14 Jul 2004 19:17:23 GMT, Arondelle <>
    wrote:

    >Neal wrote:
    >> 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. :)


    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
    C.W., Jul 14, 2004
    #20
    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. Smidak

    Re: CSS2 Way Too Complicated

    Smidak, Jul 15, 2004, in forum: HTML
    Replies:
    11
    Views:
    676
  2. Mark Parnell

    Re: CSS2 Way Too Complicated

    Mark Parnell, Jul 17, 2004, in forum: HTML
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    363
    Mark Parnell
    Jul 17, 2004
  3. Mark Parnell

    Re: CSS2 Way Too Complicated

    Mark Parnell, Jul 17, 2004, in forum: HTML
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    387
  4. Mark Parnell

    Re: CSS2 Way Too Complicated

    Mark Parnell, Jul 17, 2004, in forum: HTML
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    378
  5. Replies:
    0
    Views:
    331
Loading...

Share This Page