Wed designers / programmers / authors - read this!

[Hueij]

Originally posted by Asher
That's why CSS is a royal pain in the ass still.

Ah well,as long as Opera does a better job than IE I can live with it

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Hueij

Go here and click on the different examples of design. It's all one XHTML page, using different CSS files.
http://www.csszengarden.com/

Hmm... Some of those CSS files don't render right in Opera

They render fine in my version of Opera. The only one that's problematic is the one that is designed to horizontally scan, and the problem there is Opera, not CSS. If Opera had a horizontal scroll bar, it would work.

There is only one issue in which Opera doesn't render CSS properly, and it's a minor one which escapes me.

[St Leo]

With automated code generating programs these days, CSS is not necessarily that much easier to alter than non-CSS.

WYSIWYG editors suck, have always sucked, and will always suck.

There is only one issue in which Opera doesn't render CSS properly, and it's a minor one which escapes me.

Opera doesn't interpret the \a escape string correctly in the content property on my site.

Of course, MSIE doesn't recognize the existence of content or the universality of :hover, so Opera's in a comfortable lead over IE anyways...

[Asher]

Originally posted by St Leo
WYSIWYG editors suck, have always sucked, and will always suck.

Depends what you want to do.

You remind me of Steve Gibson, who says all "high level" languages like C, C++, and Java suck, always sucked, and will always suck.

WYSIWYG editors have their place, not everybody likes playing with CSS crap by hand. Most don't, actually, only the masochistic I'm-a-glorified-scripting-code-monkey web developers are elitist and hold CSS in such high regard.

Everyone else just couldn't care less.

[St Leo]

You remind me of Steve Gibson, who says all "high level" languages like C, C++, and Java suck, always sucked, and will always suck.

Yet I am not the one saying that CSS is Java and tables are Assembly.

[Asher]

Most tables will and do render faster than CSS.

It's only when the tables become ungodly complicated where CSS is more efficient, and if your website has that complicated of tables it's a very poor website design to begin with.

CSS is a more "proper" and "natural" way to make webpages, much like Java is to programming, but HTML is more raw and verbose.

HTML code is longer and generally faster, CSS code is shorter and generally slower.

Not that it's noticable on today's computers, but the comparison is accurate.

[St Leo]

Originally posted by Asher
Not that it's noticable on today's computers, but the comparison is accurate.

I think saying that visual design of webpages is the high-level language and that handcoded CSS is the low-level language is more apt.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Asher
You remind me of Steve Gibson, who says all "high level" languages like C, C++, and Java suck, always sucked, and will always suck.

As a CS major, you should realise the difference between WYSIWYG editors and high level languages (and why the quotes around "high level?").

What a silly analogy.

Originally posted by Asher
WYSIWYG editors have their place, not everybody likes playing with CSS crap by hand.

Your bias is showing here. Quick, cover it up!

Originally posted by Asher
Most don't, actually, only the masochistic I'm-a-glorified-scripting-code-monkey web developers are elitist and hold CSS in such high regard.

Is it easier to modify one CSS file by hand, or hundreds of files with a WYSIWYG editor?

Originally posted by Asher
Everyone else just couldn't care less.

Certainly, that's why there are hackers who write tight, elegant, and fast code and there are your run-of-the-mill programmers who think that Windows is a work of art.

It is just as certain that quality does count in the long run, as it so amply shown by Japanese cars kicking the crap out of US cars sometime in the late '70s to '80s in the last century.

BTW, what made you the spokesman of "everyone else?"

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Asher
Most tables will and do render faster than CSS.

Evidence? Cite?

[Asher]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
As a CS major, you should realise the difference between WYSIWYG editors and high level languages (and why the quotes around "high level?").

There is a difference, and hence why it's an analogy, UR.

I don't see why it's a silly analogy: high-level languages sacrifice efficiency for convenience, so do WYSIWYG editors.

"high level" is in quotes because, in modern terms, C (and C++) is not considered a high-level language, but a mid-level one. Java and C# are considered high-level languages.

Java and C# abtract farther than C and C++ do.

Your bias is showing here. Quick, cover it up!

My bias? What the hell do I care? I'm not a web developer, I don't give a crap what people use. Whenever I do do webpages, it's in HTML and not CSS because CSS is pointless for most websites. Stupid eyecandy. Like the CSS example site someone linked to...I found it poorly designed and fairly hard to read. Color schemes with high contrast and font sizes bigger than size 8 is good.

Sites today abuse CSS & flash way too much, it makes me angry.

Is it easier to modify one CSS file by hand, or hundreds of files with a WYSIWYG editor?

Have you used a modern WYSIWYG editor?
You'd go into a nice purty dialog box and change settings.
You seem to equate WYSIWYG editors to Notepad or something.

Certainly, that's why there are hackers who write tight, elegant, and fast code and there are your run-of-the-mill programmers who think that Windows is a work of art.

And then there's the below-average programmers who spend their day developing open source software because they're not good enough to be hired at Microsoft or other proprietary development houses.

BTW, what made you the spokesman of "everyone else?"

Hey, do non-CSS sites outnumber CSS sites?

Yeah, thought so.

Evidence? Cite?

Whoa Nelly, you're the one that first asserted CSS was faster, and I'm the one to provide evidence?

[Asher]

And UR, I eagerly await your reply to the DirectX issue: http://apolyton.net/forums/showthrea...threadid=94467

You know, where you display stunning ignorance about fundamental components of Windows again, then try to silently let the thread drop and hope people don't notice.

[St Leo]

Originally posted by Asher
And then there's the below-average programmers who spend their day developing open source software because they're not good enough to be hired at Microsoft or other proprietary development houses.

YHBT[0].


[0] You have been trolled.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Asher
HTML code is longer and generally faster, CSS code is shorter and generally slower.

The difference in rendering time is negligable. The difference in download time is not. Only half the households in the US have broadband, so every bit of filesize you can squeeze makes a difference.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Asher
Hey, do non-CSS sites outnumber CSS sites?

Since decent support has only been around for a few years, that's not surprising. It's like saying, most cars ever made lacked air bags, so people most not have wanted them.

[MattH]

Threadjack Alert!
How do I define the surround color/width for images inside tags using css?