Inline versus External CSS

Discussion in 'HTML' started by e n | c k m a, Dec 7, 2003.

  1. I have a friend who I'm doing web sites with now that was complaining about
    me not letting him add inline styles to the HTML.

    I tried explaining that it's less code and cleaner HTML if we use external
    style sheets.

    He brings up the point of having to do more look-ups to the external file.
    I personally think he's being silly because even if it is doing another
    look-up to the external CSS file, it wouldn't be noticable.

    What's does everyone else think?

    Thanks,
    Nicko.
     
    e n | c k m a, Dec 7, 2003
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. e n | c k m a

    Spartanicus Guest

    e n | c k m a wrote:

    >I have a friend who I'm doing web sites with now that was complaining about
    >me not letting him add inline styles to the HTML.
    >
    >I tried explaining that it's less code and cleaner HTML if we use external
    >style sheets.
    >
    >He brings up the point of having to do more look-ups to the external file.
    >I personally think he's being silly because even if it is doing another
    >look-up to the external CSS file, it wouldn't be noticable.


    This is a known issue with friend v1.21 or earlier, upgrade to friend
    v1.4+.

    --
    Spartanicus
     
    Spartanicus, Dec 7, 2003
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. e n | c k m a

    Nico Schuyt Guest

    e n | c k m a wrote:
    > I have a friend who I'm doing web sites with now that was complaining
    > about me not letting him add inline styles to the HTML.
    > I tried explaining that it's less code and cleaner HTML if we use
    > external style sheets.
    > He brings up the point of having to do more look-ups to the external
    > file. I personally think he's being silly because even if it is doing
    > another look-up to the external CSS file, it wouldn't be noticable.
    > What's does everyone else think?


    It depends on the frequency the CSS-code is applied:
    For more pages: external
    Only for one page: internal
    A small adjustment somewhere on a page: inline
    By doing this you keep your coding clean and readable.
    Nico
     
    Nico Schuyt, Dec 7, 2003
    #3
  4. "e n | c k m a" <> wrote:

    > I have a friend who I'm doing web sites with now that was
    > complaining about me not letting him add inline styles to the HTML.


    Try telling him that it's the 2000's now and everybody should use the
    modern XCSS (eXternal CSS) technology.

    Or try saying "I heard that a large company will buy our site if we
    change its visual appearance so that the user can select between three
    'skins'. How can we do that?" (It's a bit cheating, since style sheet
    switching works poorly at present. But it has no chance of working when
    embedded styles are used. Well, not quite, but let's not be excessively
    honest.)

    > I tried explaining that it's less code and cleaner HTML if we use
    > external style sheets.


    If you have no better arguments, maybe you could agree on his using
    inline styles once in a while.

    > He brings up the point of having to do more look-ups to the
    > external file. I personally think he's being silly because even if
    > it is doing another look-up to the external CSS file, it wouldn't
    > be noticable.


    It's not really a lookup. The browser will read the external style
    sheet(s) and use it (or them). When the same style sheet is used, via
    <link>, on several pages of a site, the browser will most probably
    use the copy it has already got. If the style sheet is large, this has
    a positive impact on efficiency as compared with reading it over and
    over again as part of HTML documents.

    --
    Yucca, http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/
    Pages about Web authoring: http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/www.html
     
    Jukka K. Korpela, Dec 7, 2003
    #4
  5. e n | c k m a wrote:

    > He brings up the point of having to do more look-ups to the external file.
    > I personally think he's being silly because even if it is doing another
    > look-up to the external CSS file, it wouldn't be noticable.


    If a style is only being used on the one page, it is more efficient to put
    it in a a <style /> element or in @style.

    If a style is being used on multiple pages, it is more efficient to put it
    in an external style sheet.

    Of course, it is most elegant to put everything in an external style sheet.

    --
    Toby A Inkster BSc (Hons) ARCS
    Contact Me - http://www.goddamn.co.uk/tobyink/?page=132
     
    Toby A Inkster, Dec 7, 2003
    #5
  6. e n | c k m a

    brucie Guest

    in post <news:QzBAb.42776$>
    e n | c k m a said:

    > I have a friend who I'm doing web sites with now that was complaining about
    > me not letting him add inline styles to the HTML.
    >
    > I tried explaining that it's less code and cleaner HTML if we use external
    > style sheets.
    >
    > He brings up the point of having to do more look-ups to the external file.
    > I personally think he's being silly because even if it is doing another
    > look-up to the external CSS file, it wouldn't be noticable.
    >
    > What's does everyone else think?


    i think your friend is new to CSS and has limited knowledge of HTML. he
    probably uses a WYSINWYG. he is more conformable using CSS inline
    because thats how it was done with HTML. hes just coming up with what he
    considers plausible reasons to justify his use of inline CSS. give him a
    few months and he'll quietly change to external CSS as he becomes more
    comfortable with it.

    --
    brucie
    07/December/2003 10:01:49 pm kilo
     
    brucie, Dec 7, 2003
    #6
  7. > > I tried explaining that it's less code and cleaner HTML if we use
    > > external style sheets.

    >
    > If you have no better arguments, maybe you could agree on his using
    > inline styles once in a while.


    Yeah and I have once or twice already but it for what he wanted to do, it
    would've made more sense to use a class.
     
    e n | c k m a, Dec 7, 2003
    #7
  8. > i think your friend is new to CSS and has limited knowledge of HTML. he
    > probably uses a WYSINWYG. he is more conformable using CSS inline
    > because thats how it was done with HTML. hes just coming up with what he
    > considers plausible reasons to justify his use of inline CSS. give him a
    > few months and he'll quietly change to external CSS as he becomes more
    > comfortable with it.


    I think you're right - we had a heated discussion before also about using
    JavaScript for a functional part of the site. I wouldn't let him and he got
    frustrated. He said he was annoyed because *he* knew *he* could fix the
    problem we were having with a simple JavaScript. I told him that's true but
    if it's not going to work on everyone's browser, then what's the point in
    having it?

    He then tried to show me that almost every site uses JavaScript these days
    and therefore, everyone has JavaScript enabled. He started browsing around
    with JavaScript disabled to "prove" his point. I told him that every site
    he'd been to (including Hotmail) proved MY point even more - that it's bad
    design to rely on JavaScript for site functionality/stability. It was very
    aggrovating because he still didn't quite understand.

    He's a very argumentative fellow. Shame.
     
    e n | c k m a, Dec 7, 2003
    #8
  9. Jukka K. Korpela, Dec 7, 2003
    #9
  10. e n | c k m a

    kayodeok Guest

    "Jukka K. Korpela" <> wrote in news:Xns944ACDAED271Djkorpelacstutfi@193.229.0.31:

    > brucie <> wrote:
    >
    >> he probably uses a WYSINWYG.

    >
    > What's that? I'm familiar with
    > WYSIWYG = What You See Is What You Get
    > and
    > WYSINWOG = What You See Is Not What Others Get,
    > and they denote the same thing, but whats WYSINWYG?
    >


    Google says Brucie has been using this Acronym
    for at least 2 years:
    http://groups.google.com/groups?as_q=WYSINWYG&as_uauthors=brucie&num=100

    http://www.acronymfinder.com/af-query.asp?p=dict&String=exact&Acronym=WYSINWYG
    http://www.google.com/search?q=WYSINWYG
    http://groups.google.com/groups?q=WYSINWYG

    --
    Kayode Okeyode
    http://www.kayodeok.co.uk/weblog/
    http://www.kayodeok.btinternet.co.uk/favorites/webdesign.htm
     
    kayodeok, Dec 7, 2003
    #10
  11. Jukka K. Korpela wrote:
    > brucie <> wrote:
    >
    >> he probably uses a WYSINWYG.

    >
    > What's that? I'm familiar with
    > WYSIWYG = What You See Is What You Get
    > and
    > WYSINWOG = What You See Is Not What Others Get,
    > and they denote the same thing, but whats WYSINWYG?


    Whilst not presuming to speak for brucie, I have been using the term for
    some time - since the first attempts at a WYSIWYG word processor.

    It's use is similar to your WYSINWOG (which is fairly new to me)

    WYSINWIG - What you see is not[1] what you get.

    [1] or 'nearly' in some circumstances.

    --
    William Tasso - http://WilliamTasso.com
     
    William Tasso, Dec 7, 2003
    #11
  12. Toby A Inkster, Dec 7, 2003
    #12
  13. > > WYSINWIG - What you see is not[1] what you get.
    >
    > Odd way of abbreviating the second "you".


    Okay, so - "What you see is not what I get"

    I like it.
     
    e n | c k m a, Dec 7, 2003
    #13
  14. e n | c k m a

    brucie Guest

    in post <news:Xns944ACDAED271Djkorpelacstutfi@193.229.0.31>
    Jukka K. Korpela said:

    >> he probably uses a WYSINWYG.


    > What's that? I'm familiar with
    > WYSIWYG = What You See Is What You Get
    > and
    > WYSINWOG = What You See Is Not What Others Get,
    > and they denote the same thing, but whats WYSINWYG?


    i don't know :-(

    i just type what the little voices tell me to. they get mad if i don't.
    they make me do things.

    --
    brucie
    08/December/2003 09:54:34 am kilo
     
    brucie, Dec 7, 2003
    #14
  15. Toby A Inkster wrote:
    > William Tasso wrote:
    >
    >> WYSINWIG - What you see is not[1] what you get.

    >
    > Odd way of abbreviating the second "you".


    Odd indeed. I can offer no justifiable reason for this behaviour - my only
    (feeble) excuse is that neither variation has an entry in my spell-checker.
    I have now completed the investigation, the offending finger has been tried
    and convicted. In the absence of a pardon being granted, the offending
    finger will be taken to a place of execution at dawn where there will be a
    small ceremony followed by an informal wake with tea and biscuits as well as
    the obligatory finger buffet.

    ps: I should like to take this opportunity to thank e n | c k m a and the
    rest of the team for their valiant, but ulimately, unsuccessful defence.

    --
    William Tasso - http://WilliamTasso.com
     
    William Tasso, Dec 8, 2003
    #15
    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. Matthew Louden
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    7,109
    Scott M.
    Oct 11, 2003
  2. Russ

    script versus code versus ?

    Russ, Jun 10, 2004, in forum: ASP .Net
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    2,538
  3. Daniel Vallstrom
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    2,050
    Kevin Bracey
    Nov 21, 2003
  4. Paul Butcher
    Replies:
    12
    Views:
    782
    Gary Wright
    Nov 28, 2007
  5. se
    Replies:
    19
    Views:
    196
Loading...

Share This Page