Which browser to write for??

Discussion in 'HTML' started by Bill, Apr 21, 2006.

  1. Bill

    Bill Guest

    I'm working on learning html/css/java etc so I can maintain a church website
    and am currently rewriting said site to use css instead of tables for
    formating. After getting a good chunk of the way through the rewrite I
    decided to try viewing the site in other browsers, Netscape, mozilla and
    Opera, to see how well the would handle a site designed for IE 6. Of course
    there are differences so I was looking into detecting different browsers so
    I could add in css sheets to fix individual browser problems. Here's the
    kicker, should I be designing the default page for IE 6 or something else?
    What I mean is do I make a page that looks good in IE 6 and fix it for the
    other browsers or do I use something else and fix the page for IE 6 quirks
    and bugs?? Which browser is more Standards Complient? I figure that I'd be
    better off getting as close to Complient as possible and adding fixes for IE
    6 but I'm not sure WHICH browser is the closest. Any suggestions??

    Bill
    Bill, Apr 21, 2006
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Bill

    mbstevens Guest

    Bill wrote:
    > I'm working on learning html/css/java etc so I can maintain a church website
    > and am currently rewriting said site to use css instead of tables for
    > formating. After getting a good chunk of the way through the rewrite I
    > decided to try viewing the site in other browsers, Netscape, mozilla and
    > Opera, to see how well the would handle a site designed for IE 6. Of course
    > there are differences so I was looking into detecting different browsers so
    > I could add in css sheets to fix individual browser problems. Here's the
    > kicker, should I be designing the default page for IE 6 or something else?
    > What I mean is do I make a page that looks good in IE 6 and fix it for the
    > other browsers or do I use something else and fix the page for IE 6 quirks
    > and bugs?? Which browser is more Standards Complient? I figure that I'd be
    > better off getting as close to Complient as possible and adding fixes for IE
    > 6 but I'm not sure WHICH browser is the closest. Any suggestions??
    >
    > Bill
    >
    >

    If you're doing standards markup and CSS that is so critical that it
    doesn't look good in _most_ browsers, then you are probably trying to
    put too much on the page, or are trying to do visual things that
    standard markup does not do well. The first thing to try is
    spreading the information out to more pages while making each page
    simpler in ways that it does not have to look exactly the same across
    browsers.

    If you find yourself trying to detect browsers, you're doing something
    wrong. It does make sense, if you insist, to detect _capabilities_
    on occasion. But you can easily write pages that don't require this,
    and this is what you should shoot for at first.
    --
    mbstevens
    http://www.mbstevens.com/
    mbstevens, Apr 21, 2006
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Bill wrote:

    > course there are differences so I was looking into detecting different
    > browsers so I could add in css sheets to fix individual browser problems.


    Trying to detect different browsers and serving up different stylesheets is
    almost certainly more effort then it is worth.

    Usually you don't need to do more then write one stylesheet for everything
    and override certain parts of it in a second stylesheet loading inside
    conditional comments that restrict it to Internet Explorer.

    > Here's the kicker, should I be designing the default page for IE 6 or
    > something else?


    The general concensus (and my experience) seems to be that it is easier to
    write for Firefox (or possibly Opera, Safari or Konqueror) then make
    adjustments to deal with other browsers.

    > be better off getting as close to Complient as possible and adding fixes
    > for IE 6 but I'm not sure WHICH browser is the closest.


    The leading non-IE browsers have little to choose between them when it comes
    to standards conformance.

    --
    David Dorward <http://blog.dorward.me.uk/> <http://dorward.me.uk/>
    Home is where the ~/.bashrc is
    David Dorward, Apr 21, 2006
    #3
  4. Bill wrote:

    > I'm working on learning html/css/java etc so I can maintain a church website
    > and am currently rewriting said site to use css instead of tables for
    > formating. After getting a good chunk of the way through the rewrite I
    > decided to try viewing the site in other browsers, Netscape, mozilla and
    > Opera, to see how well the would handle a site designed for IE 6. Of course
    > there are differences so I was looking into detecting different browsers so
    > I could add in css sheets to fix individual browser problems. Here's the
    > kicker, should I be designing the default page for IE 6 or something else?
    > What I mean is do I make a page that looks good in IE 6 and fix it for the
    > other browsers or do I use something else and fix the page for IE 6 quirks
    > and bugs??


    Design for other browsers first, then possibly add some fixes for the IE
    bugs. Make sure you are using a DOCTYPE that triggers standard and not
    quirks mode.

    My philosophy is to design with no browser in mind at all.

    > Which browser is more Standards Complient?


    Among popular modern browsers? Almost any but IE. Perhaps Opera.

    > I figure that I'd be better off getting as close to Complient as
    > possible and adding fixes for IE 6 but I'm not sure WHICH browser is
    > the closest. Any suggestions??


    Seeing your efforts to date would be a good start on any
    recommendations. URL?

    --
    -bts
    -Warning: I brake for lawn deer
    Beauregard T. Shagnasty, Apr 21, 2006
    #4
  5. Bill

    Bill Guest

    Whupps, I guess I didn't make it clear what my goals are or what I'm seeing
    now so I'll try it again. The original page was developed in IE 6 and had
    all of it's margins and padding sized and positioned correctly. When
    viewing in Opera/Nestcape/Mozilla a few of the margins and paddings were
    off, not much but enough to make me want to 'fix' the problem for those
    browsers. What I was considering doing was to use some kine of browser
    detector to add in a second css sheet AFTER the original css link on the
    page to cascade the 'fixes' for the other browsers into the page. When I
    started looking into it it seemed that it might be easier and more correct
    to write the code for a more complient browser and then add in the 'fixes'
    for IE 6. As it sets now it's looking like I should focus on Opera or
    Mozilla as the default browser and get it to look correct in them and then
    add any fixes for IE 6.

    Thanks for the info.

    Bill


    "David Dorward" <> wrote in message
    news:e2ar2u$kjb$1$...
    > Bill wrote:
    >
    > > course there are differences so I was looking into detecting different
    > > browsers so I could add in css sheets to fix individual browser

    problems.
    >
    > Trying to detect different browsers and serving up different stylesheets

    is
    > almost certainly more effort then it is worth.
    >
    > Usually you don't need to do more then write one stylesheet for everything
    > and override certain parts of it in a second stylesheet loading inside
    > conditional comments that restrict it to Internet Explorer.
    >
    > > Here's the kicker, should I be designing the default page for IE 6 or
    > > something else?

    >
    > The general concensus (and my experience) seems to be that it is easier to
    > write for Firefox (or possibly Opera, Safari or Konqueror) then make
    > adjustments to deal with other browsers.
    >
    > > be better off getting as close to Complient as possible and adding fixes
    > > for IE 6 but I'm not sure WHICH browser is the closest.

    >
    > The leading non-IE browsers have little to choose between them when it

    comes
    > to standards conformance.
    >
    > --
    > David Dorward <http://blog.dorward.me.uk/> <http://dorward.me.uk/>
    > Home is where the ~/.bashrc is
    Bill, Apr 21, 2006
    #5
  6. Bill

    Bill Guest

    No URL yet, the original site is www.faithecchurch.org . I started out with
    a badly botched up site and completely rewrote it using FrontPage 2003. My
    initial try is what I'm calling the interim site, works but not fancy or all
    that up to date code wise. I have done some research and discovered css and
    decided to rework the site to get most of the formatting out of the content
    page. My main goal is to get a technically correct site that will allow
    most browsers to view it in an acceptable way, including voice browsers for
    the blind(it is a church site after all shouldn't it be accessible to
    everyone who wants to 'view' it) and one that is not completely ugly ;) I'm
    not looking for extreme or fancy just down to earth, I'm not good enough to
    do a 'Heavenly' site :)


    Bill

    "Beauregard T. Shagnasty" <> wrote in message
    news:1i62g.28677$...
    > Bill wrote:
    >
    > > I'm working on learning html/css/java etc so I can maintain a church

    website
    > > and am currently rewriting said site to use css instead of tables for
    > > formating. After getting a good chunk of the way through the rewrite I
    > > decided to try viewing the site in other browsers, Netscape, mozilla and
    > > Opera, to see how well the would handle a site designed for IE 6. Of

    course
    > > there are differences so I was looking into detecting different browsers

    so
    > > I could add in css sheets to fix individual browser problems. Here's

    the
    > > kicker, should I be designing the default page for IE 6 or something

    else?
    > > What I mean is do I make a page that looks good in IE 6 and fix it for

    the
    > > other browsers or do I use something else and fix the page for IE 6

    quirks
    > > and bugs??

    >
    > Design for other browsers first, then possibly add some fixes for the IE
    > bugs. Make sure you are using a DOCTYPE that triggers standard and not
    > quirks mode.
    >
    > My philosophy is to design with no browser in mind at all.
    >
    > > Which browser is more Standards Complient?

    >
    > Among popular modern browsers? Almost any but IE. Perhaps Opera.
    >
    > > I figure that I'd be better off getting as close to Complient as
    > > possible and adding fixes for IE 6 but I'm not sure WHICH browser is
    > > the closest. Any suggestions??

    >
    > Seeing your efforts to date would be a good start on any
    > recommendations. URL?
    >
    > --
    > -bts
    > -Warning: I brake for lawn deer
    Bill, Apr 21, 2006
    #6
  7. Bill

    Andy Dingley Guest

    Bill wrote:
    > Here's the kicker, should I be designing the default page for IE 6 or something else?


    Just don't do that at all. Design for the standard, not for this week's
    fashionable browser bugs. There's one standard, it's objective.
    Browser bugs always outnumber you, you'll never get on top of them.

    That said, you have to be aware of IE simply because it's so
    commonplace (so are rats). Being "aware of it" though is a lot
    different to "designing for it". Study the well-known faults in IE and
    the well-described ways to work around them. Make your standards-based
    site behave itself in a way that's also IE-friendly. You don't even
    need to look at the page in IE yet - all this stuff is described for
    you, you don't need to explore and find it out for yourself.

    Then test under IE. Discover the bugs you didn't even expect. Apply
    fixes to them where you can (so long as they don't break the
    standards-based design) or re-design the site and cut features if you
    can't find any work-around.

    Browser sniffing is just about the worst thing you could attempt. It's
    separately both a bad idea inherently, and unworkable to achieve.

    IE conditional comments are useful. They're a bogus idea, but they do
    degrade quite well on real web tools. Just always code them as "If
    broken M$ product" rather than "If standards-based mode". That way the
    correct tools skip them.
    Andy Dingley, Apr 21, 2006
    #7
  8. Bill wrote:

    Please do not top post: http://allmyfaqs.net/faq.pl?How_to_post

    > Whupps, I guess I didn't make it clear what my goals are or what I'm
    > seeing now so I'll try it again. The original page was developed in IE 6
    > and had all of it's margins and padding sized and positioned correctly.
    > When viewing in Opera/Nestcape/Mozilla a few of the margins and paddings
    > were off, not much but enough to make me want to 'fix' the problem for
    > those browsers.


    Odds are that you are using a Doctype that triggers Quirks mode in IE6
    causing it to intentionally replicate bugs in earlier versions - including
    getting "width" wrong.

    Switching to a Doctype that triggers Standards mode and then repairing the
    stylesheet is likely the best solution to the problem.

    --
    David Dorward <http://blog.dorward.me.uk/> <http://dorward.me.uk/>
    Home is where the ~/.bashrc is
    David Dorward, Apr 21, 2006
    #8
  9. Bill wrote:

    > No URL yet, the original site is www.faithecchurch.org .


    Ok, your first goal should be to fix the errors, which will put you well
    on your way to being a cross-browser compatible site.

    <http://validator.w3.org/check?verbose=1&uri=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.faithecchurch.org%2F>

    and some CSS errors and warning as well:

    <http://jigsaw.w3.org/css-validator/validator?profile=css2&warning=2&uri=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.faithecchurch.org%2F>

    > I started out with a badly botched up site and completely rewrote it
    > using FrontPage 2003.


    FrontPage. Your next step would be to stop using that. Probably why you
    are fixated on writing for IE...

    --
    -bts
    -Warning: I brake for lawn deer
    Beauregard T. Shagnasty, Apr 21, 2006
    #9
  10. Bill

    Bill Guest

    Below is my doctype line:

    <!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01//EN"
    "http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/strict.dtd">

    I thought that using strict stopped a browser from doing the fallback thing?

    Bill



    "David Dorward" <> wrote in message
    news:e2atkj$oui$1$...
    > Bill wrote:
    >
    > Please do not top post: http://allmyfaqs.net/faq.pl?How_to_post
    >
    > > Whupps, I guess I didn't make it clear what my goals are or what I'm
    > > seeing now so I'll try it again. The original page was developed in IE

    6
    > > and had all of it's margins and padding sized and positioned correctly.
    > > When viewing in Opera/Nestcape/Mozilla a few of the margins and paddings
    > > were off, not much but enough to make me want to 'fix' the problem for
    > > those browsers.

    >
    > Odds are that you are using a Doctype that triggers Quirks mode in IE6
    > causing it to intentionally replicate bugs in earlier versions - including
    > getting "width" wrong.
    >
    > Switching to a Doctype that triggers Standards mode and then repairing the
    > stylesheet is likely the best solution to the problem.
    >
    > --
    > David Dorward <http://blog.dorward.me.uk/> <http://dorward.me.uk/>
    > Home is where the ~/.bashrc is
    Bill, Apr 21, 2006
    #10
  11. Bill

    Bill Guest

    What part of "No URL yet" did you miss? The site I posted is the one I
    initially threw together using FrontPage and is not one I'm currently
    working with, I just wanted to show what the finished page should resemble
    to the group.

    I guess I missed posting that I'm now using Dreamweaver 8 and not FrontPage
    for the new version of the site, my bad. Dreamweaver handles css in a much
    better fashion than FrontPage so I jumped to it. I do have a question why
    do you think I'm fixated with IE?? It happens to be the browser I use on my
    system so I naturally started with that in mind. The fact that I'm looking
    into writing for a proper browser should tell you I'm not 'fixated' with IE.
    Besides which doesn't IE dominate the web at the moment? If I view my stats
    for the old page I see a much larger slice of the pie going to IE than to
    other browsers. With that in mind why wouldn't I initially design around IE
    instead of another browser. It's only after I've gotten into this a bit
    that I questioned the method I was using to support IE and was looking for
    alternatives.

    Bill



    "Beauregard T. Shagnasty" <> wrote in message
    news:_%62g.28784$...
    > Bill wrote:
    >
    > > No URL yet, the original site is www.faithecchurch.org .

    >
    > Ok, your first goal should be to fix the errors, which will put you well
    > on your way to being a cross-browser compatible site.
    >
    >

    <http://validator.w3.org/check?verbose=1&uri=http://www.faithecchurch.
    org%2F>
    >
    > and some CSS errors and warning as well:
    >
    >

    <http://jigsaw.w3.org/css-validator/validator?profile=css2&warning=2&uri=htt
    p%3A%2F%2Fwww.faithecchurch.org%2F>
    >
    > > I started out with a badly botched up site and completely rewrote it
    > > using FrontPage 2003.

    >
    > FrontPage. Your next step would be to stop using that. Probably why you
    > are fixated on writing for IE...
    >
    > --
    > -bts
    > -Warning: I brake for lawn deer
    Bill, Apr 21, 2006
    #11
  12. Bill wrote:

    > What part of "No URL yet" did you miss?


    Yes, sorry I did miss that.

    > The site I posted is the one I initially threw together using
    > FrontPage and is not one I'm currently working with, I just wanted to
    > show what the finished page should resemble to the group.
    >
    > I guess I missed posting that I'm now using Dreamweaver 8 and not
    > FrontPage for the new version of the site, my bad. Dreamweaver
    > handles css in a much better fashion than FrontPage so I jumped to
    > it.


    Have you considered using a good text editor instead?

    > I do have a question why do you think I'm fixated with IE??


    Well, because you kept stating that you were designing for IE, and
    wondering how to make it work in other browsers, I suppose.

    > It happens to be the browser I use on my system so I naturally started
    > with that in mind.


    Do you have the other browsers installed as well?

    > The fact that I'm looking into writing for a proper browser should
    > tell you I'm not 'fixated' with IE. Besides which doesn't IE dominate
    > the web at the moment? If I view my stats for the old page I see a
    > much larger slice of the pie going to IE than to other browsers.


    Doesn't really matter, though.

    > With that in mind why wouldn't I initially design around IE instead
    > of another browser. It's only after I've gotten into this a bit that
    > I questioned the method I was using to support IE and was looking for
    > alternatives.


    Most people will tell you that there is generally no need to *support*
    IE. Write good error-free conforming code, and your pages will probably
    work quite well in *all* browsers.

    You also may have missed David's recommendation:

    > Please do not top post: http://allmyfaqs.net/faq.pl?How_to_post


    Feel free to press the PageDown key before replying. Good inline posting
    with trimming as necessary is the preferred method in Usenet.

    --
    -bts
    -Warning: I brake for lawn deer
    Beauregard T. Shagnasty, Apr 21, 2006
    #12
  13. Bill

    Bill Guest

    Oh, I see... IE has the current market share so I'll just stick my fingers
    in my ears and say NANANANANANAN.....
    If I were selling something and I knew 80 percent of the population prefered
    the item in blue I'd be rather foolish to make it in green wouldn't I.


    Wonderful, another net cop.....

    Bill


    "Beauregard T. Shagnasty" <> wrote in message
    news:OC72g.58979$...
    <snip>
    > > The fact that I'm looking into writing for a proper browser should
    > > tell you I'm not 'fixated' with IE. Besides which doesn't IE dominate
    > > the web at the moment? If I view my stats for the old page I see a
    > > much larger slice of the pie going to IE than to other browsers.

    >
    > Doesn't really matter, though.
    >


    <snip>
    >
    > You also may have missed David's recommendation:

    <snip>
    Bill, Apr 21, 2006
    #13
  14. Bill wrote:

    > Wonderful, another net cop.....


    Wonderful, another person who ignores the norms and standards of the
    community he is asking for help from.


    --
    David Dorward <http://blog.dorward.me.uk/> <http://dorward.me.uk/>
    Home is where the ~/.bashrc is
    David Dorward, Apr 21, 2006
    #14
  15. Bill

    JDS Guest

    On Fri, 21 Apr 2006 11:11:54 -0400, Bill wrote:

    > My main goal is to get a technically correct site that will allow
    > most browsers to view it in an acceptable way, including voice browsers for
    > the blind(it is a church site after all shouldn't it be accessible to
    > everyone who wants to 'view' it) and one that is not completely ugly ;) I'm
    > not looking for extreme or fancy just down to earth, I'm not good enough to
    > do a 'Heavenly' site :)


    HTML at its core is VERY easy to learn. There really is no reason why
    one needs to use any sort of WYSIWYG HTML editor like FrontPage or
    Dreamweaver, as long as one learns a couple of basic things:

    1) Learn hoe to find answers to your questions when you get stuck.
    Posting here is good, but there are better ways. w3schools.com, w3c.org,
    and other websites have a lot of helpful information. Google is your
    friend. Use it.

    2) Understand that HTML is *NOT* about presentation. HTML does not
    inherently suggest how a site should "look" -- and it NEVER HAS. HTML was
    designed to identify what parts of a document are -- e.g. "this is a
    header" or "this is a list". HTML was never intended to be used to
    force an actual look and layout.

    3) Target the "standard" as defined by the W3C. Do NOT target one
    particular browser.

    4) Use CSS to create your look.

    Now, using CSS is probably harder to learn than using HTML. HTML is
    really very simple. If something is a paragraph, you just mark it as
    such. There are additional details, but HTML is really very easy to start
    learning.

    Once you have a page that is correctly marked up with HTML, *then* you can
    worry about determining a look for the page (or site). Post back again
    when you have questions about CSS. Having semantically correct HTML will
    automatically do things like improve accessibility, improve SEO, and allow
    for cross-browser (and cross-platform) viewing.

    Oh, and when designing a look/layout, try using a piece of paper first.
    You'll find that most professional designers do not even use a computer at
    all for their initial drafts.

    later...

    --
    JDS | lid
    | http://www.newtnotes.com
    DJMBS | http://newtnotes.com/doctor-jeff-master-brainsurgeon/
    JDS, Apr 21, 2006
    #15
  16. Bill wrote:
    > Oh, I see... IE has the current market share so I'll just stick my fingers
    > in my ears and say NANANANANANAN.....
    > If I were selling something and I knew 80 percent of the population prefered
    > the item in blue I'd be rather foolish to make it in green wouldn't I.
    >


    It is 58% and falling on my commercial website. I do not want to turn
    away dollars of folks with some intellect. Foolish notion to believe
    that the marketshare will always remain constant. Code to the spec and
    then add allowances to accommodate the uncooperative if significant, not
    the other way around.



    --
    Take care,

    Jonathan
    -------------------
    LITTLE WORKS STUDIO
    http://www.LittleWorksStudio.com
    Jonathan N. Little, Apr 21, 2006
    #16
  17. On Fri, 21 Apr 2006, JDS wrote:

    > HTML at its core is VERY easy to learn.


    That hasn't been my experience of trying to help people with it!

    Many (even "most") of them come to the web with the pre-conceived
    notion that it's DTP, and that the purpose of everything therefore
    must be to specify visual results on a computer screen.

    To make things worse, this misconception is repeatedly pandered-to by
    the purveyors of so-called WYSIWYG authoring software.

    They simply cannot grasp the idea of HTML as abstract markup,
    available to any kind of presentation and for other (searching,
    indexing etc.) purposes.

    Accessibility to other kinds of browsing (e.g speaking browser, text
    mode browser etc.), once it's been hammered into their consciousness,
    they immediately rate as an advanced technique - for which they
    consider that their page has no need, and anyway they opine that they
    would need to make separate versions of their page for each of these
    purposes. For which, of course, they conclude they have no time and
    cannot spare the resources, for what they perceive to be a tiny
    minority[1]

    They simply have no idea, and repeatedly fail to grasp, that this
    accessibility is already built into the design, and that what they
    need to do is to use it as it was intended.

    I am genuinely not exaggerating: I have seen and heard these responses
    over and over again. It's only after a long and painful UN-learning
    of their preconceptions (which many of them refuse point-blank to even
    start on) that they can begin to grasp the ideas of composing one
    abstract markup (HTML/XHTML) accompanied by some optional presentation
    proposal(s) = stylesheet(s).

    that's how it's seemed to me, anyway. best regards.


    [1] yes indeed, good search robots really are a tiny minority of web
    site visitors, but IMHO rather important visitors for all that.
    Alan J. Flavell, Apr 21, 2006
    #17
  18. Bill

    Bill Guest

    Ok, fine, you win. I hope you enjoy it you've earned it.

    Bill

    "Jonathan N. Little" <> wrote in message
    news:4449157a$0$3701$...
    > Bill wrote:
    > > Oh, I see... IE has the current market share so I'll just stick my

    fingers
    > > in my ears and say NANANANANANAN.....
    > > If I were selling something and I knew 80 percent of the population

    prefered
    > > the item in blue I'd be rather foolish to make it in green wouldn't I.
    > >

    >
    > It is 58% and falling on my commercial website. I do not want to turn
    > away dollars of folks with some intellect. Foolish notion to believe
    > that the marketshare will always remain constant. Code to the spec and
    > then add allowances to accommodate the uncooperative if significant, not
    > the other way around.
    >
    >
    >
    > --
    > Take care,
    >
    > Jonathan
    > -------------------
    > LITTLE WORKS STUDIO
    > http://www.LittleWorksStudio.com
    Bill, Apr 21, 2006
    #18
  19. Bill

    Neredbojias Guest

    To further the education of mankind, "Bill" <>
    vouchsafed:

    > Oh, I see... IE has the current market share so I'll just stick my
    > fingers in my ears and say NANANANANANAN.....
    > If I were selling something and I knew 80 percent of the population
    > prefered the item in blue I'd be rather foolish to make it in green
    > wouldn't I.
    >
    >
    > Wonderful, another net cop.....
    >
    > Bill


    What are you talking about, you hypocritical ass? You not only quote
    incorrectly, you do so on several levels and patently ignore advice to
    improve. Your attitude provides more than sufficient evidence that you
    cannot be helped in any case so you may as well just bug off and go play
    God somewhere else.

    --
    Neredbojias
    Infinity has its limits.
    Neredbojias, Apr 21, 2006
    #19
  20. Bill

    Andy Dingley Guest

    On Fri, 21 Apr 2006 19:53:59 +0100, "Alan J. Flavell"
    <> wrote:

    >On Fri, 21 Apr 2006, JDS wrote:
    >
    >> HTML at its core is VERY easy to learn.

    >
    >That hasn't been my experience of trying to help people with it!


    It would be, except that almost none of them will be happy to "learn
    HTML" - they all want to dive straight in with presentation rubbish too
    "because they've already done that at home with FP" or "Their kids had
    dancing penguins, so they want them too and they want them now".


    I'd also disagree that HTML has no presentational aspects. It ought not
    to, it's a laudable aim to try and eliminate them. But CSS can only
    style what it's given and you _do_ find a need to introduce extra
    wrapper <div>s or the odd <br>, just so that there's enough granularity
    to be able to apply sophisticated CSS to.
    Andy Dingley, Apr 21, 2006
    #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. John
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    350
  2. Familyman
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    511
    Alan J. Flavell
    Feb 9, 2006
  3. Kenny
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    452
    Kenny
    Jun 2, 2004
  4. chetan
    Replies:
    5
    Views:
    367
    John Harrison
    Sep 21, 2004
  5. DanielEKFA
    Replies:
    8
    Views:
    587
    DanielEKFA
    May 16, 2005
Loading...

Share This Page