CSS2 Way Too Complicated

[Samuël van Laere]

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

To hell with old browsers, same goes for bad browsers.


Regards,
Samuël van Laere

 

[Mark Parnell]

Amazon's reviewers give it only 3.5 stars for bad spelling and editing,
and for being more confusing than helpful.

But Amazon's web site uses table-based design, so why listen to them?

 

[Eric B. Bednarz]

CSS2 was published 12-May-1998. Today is 14-July-2004.

Right. Considering the fact that the fine print still hasn't been
sorted out in the meantime, I'm inclined to sympathise with the OP.

 

[Samuël van Laere]

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???

Brucie calls it giggly stuff, but i think everything makes him giggle at
some point.
I myself found it easy even more because of the help i've had from the many
regulars here.


Regards,
Samuël van Laere

 

[Joel Shepherd]

But Amazon's web site uses table-based design, so why listen to them?

Uh, well for starters, reviewers employed by Amazon don't give "stars"
for anything. It customers, who do write reviews and give "stars",
aren't responsible for how the site is implemented.

Perhaps if you spent a little less time analyzing the markup, you would
have noticed this subtle distinction.

--
Joel.

http://www.cv6.org/
"May she also say with just pride:
I have done the State some service."

 

[Mark Parnell]

Perhaps if you spent a little less time analyzing the markup, you would
have noticed this subtle distinction.

It seems my tongue wasn't planted quite firmly enough in my cheek for
you to notice. Will have to ask Richard for some lessons.

BTW: I didn't even look at their markup, I just guessed - correctly as
it turns out.

 

[Andy Dingley]

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

What were they thinking when they wrote it?

That it was a spec, not a tutorial.

The average person would take way too much study to comprehend it

It's not part of the spec for the CSS spc that an average person
_should_ be able to comprehend it. Specs are hard - ambiguity has to
be removed in favour of accuracy, even if clarity suffers. Read the
long thread between Jukka and myself over in c.i.w.a.h about <dl>

If you want a CSS introductory tutorial, go and read Lie & Bos'
"Cascading Style Sheets". Oddly, it's written by the authors of the
spec (or some of them), yet the style is quite different.

Using Tables for positioning is way easier...

Is this a question about the complexity of CSS, or the complexity of
the CSS spec ?

 

[Joel Shepherd]

It seems my tongue wasn't planted quite firmly enough in my cheek for
you to notice.

Sorry, my bad then. I was too busy checking out your butt. (Did I say
that out loud?)

BTW: I didn't even look at their markup, I just guessed - correctly as
it turns out.

No doubt. It's heavily tables, though there is some token CSS floating
around: poorly implemented with 'style' attributes and clunky at best,
but it's a start.

--
Joel.

http://www.cv6.org/
"May she also say with just pride:
I have done the State some service."