Kris said:
An author not using CSS because CSS means letting go of the absolute
control he never had?
Pardon? Did that statement fit the context? CSS is the real path to
pixel-perfection, of course. The degree of pixel-level control increases at
each version. CSS1 - a bit. CSS2 - more. And lots more in CSS3. The CSS1
recommendation says (these are extracts from Appendix E):
CSS1 does not offer:
- per pixel control: CSS1 values simplicity over level of control, and
although the combination of background images and styled HTML is powerful,
control to the pixel level is not possible.
- a layout language: CSS1 does not offer multiple columns with text-flow,
overlapping frames etc.
We expect to see extensions of CSS in several directions:
- values, properties: we expect vendors to propose extensions to the CSS1 set
of values and properties.
- layout language: support for two-dimensional layout in the tradition of
desktop publishing packages.
And the summary at the following suggests some trends for better
author-control in CSS3:
http://www.w3.org/TR/2000/WD-css3-roadmap-20000414
Only a beginner would attempt that level of control using (say) tables. It
isn't in the nature of tables. They are highly adaptive to user conditions,
such as text size, whether images are being downloaded, and viewport size.
Experienced developers accept that about tables.
It occurs to me that there are number of reaons why users miss some or all
styles. It is quite common, apparently, for authors to hide some or all of
their CSS from certain browsers. I know of the "@import" one for NN4.7, but I
have read of techniques for others too, such as conditionals for versions of
IE, "hide from IE Mac", etc. (Heck - I've just remembered that I used those
once!) So it appears that users miss some or all styles for various reasons,
some not of their making.
We just have to accept that some users will get a degraded version of what
others see, and the "ultimate" is to get just what the raw HTML gives, with no
CSS.
When I use <strong>Hey there!</strong> I am not deciding to make it
look bold. I know it will be rendered that way in a lot of
situations, but I would continue to use it for strong emphasis even
if I knew that the default rendering show balloons and confetti.
Fine. It wasn't intended to make it look bold, so it makes a lot of sense not
to expect that. But other features of HTML *were* intended to have specific
effects, such as the new lines of block-level elements, and the inline
behaviour of ... well, inline elements! And the laying out of complex material
in rows & columns of tables. Those are all effects that are reasonable to
expect by default, on a large enough screen. They are written as a formatting
model into the recommendations.
I think that foremost you should make an attempt giving up your desire
to control.
It is *inevitable* that the the mark-up will have layout implications by
default. And in some cases the likely effects are well recorded. Someone who
writes a sequence of paragraphs knows what they are likely to get. Ditto list.
Etc. And when what you do inevitably has consequences that effect many users,
it is wise to make the choices consciously. You can't really say in HTML alone
"I rescind all default layout implications of this mark-up". You are stuck
with it, so make it a suitable as possible for your audience.
Again CSS: a User Stylesheet does the job. However, plenty of browsers
also offer abilities to override font-size and color specifications
through the preferences.
Yes. And Opera offers the ability to disable tables. My guess is that others
will in future. Even the normal default effects of mark-up will come more &
more under user control. So authors might as well do what they believe is best
for people using default settings, and accept that those who are not using
default settings will get something else. This is win-win.
