[ale] CSS hell

[James Sumners]

To sum it all up nicely for the "business" people:
http://www.hotdesign.com/seybold/

On Sat, 15 May 2004 23:59:21 +0100
George Carless <kafka at antichri.st> wrote:

> Besides all other considerations, the decision to use CSS/xhtml goes way 
> beyond what's "easier on the browser": it amounts to a philosophical and a 
> pragmatic choice to separate layout from content, for a variety of 
> reasons.  Of course some (many?) people do abuse css, but there is 
> nonetheless a great deal to be said for an approach that says "let's mark 
> content up by describing what it IS, rather than what it 'looks like', so 
> that we can then apply a different 'look' to it according to the display 
> medium".  In a very simple example, I often use different stylesheets for 
> print than I do for web browsers, so that when a user prints out a web 
> page they are presented with something that is better suited to that 
> particular medium: there's no point in printing out things like dynamic 
> menus or whatnot when what a user generally *wants* is the "main content," 
> and so I print out just that, formatted for print, with perhaps some 
> additional contact information or whatnot that wouldn't appear in the 
> browser.  In the intranet/extranet/internet scenario, CSS would allow the 
> precise same content to be displayed in each case with just a different 
> stylesheet applied to present that content in the manner appropriate to 
> the site in question.  
> 
> Only the inexperienced would argue that the css approach adds clutter: all 
> those of us who have seen the light would tell you that css almost always 
> radically reduces the quantity of extraneous tags, and further ensures 
> that what code *is* there has a precise purpose, marking up the content 
> that it describes.  Tables for layout are a nasty hack, and even the 
> layperson will generally find a pure css-based layout to be far more 
> elegant and legible than they will any table-based mess.  And this is 
> without even considering issues like accessibility (suitability for 
> screen readers etc.), which is an area where tables can *really* start 
> messing things up...
> 
> Yes, getting to grips with css for design can be tricky.  And yes, the 
> cross-browser issues can be a pain.  I'm still working to complete 
> compliance myself for various sites (mainly because my boss still doesn't 
> really 'get it'..), but I've still been able to develop a number of 
> complex designs that render 'correctly' for different browsers and that, 
> via css, can be quickly and easily transformed  on a whim. 
> 
> --George


-- 

I used to be interested in Windows NT, but the more I see of it the more it
looks like traditional Windows with a stabler kernel. I don't find anything
technically interesting there. In my opinion MS is a lot better at making money
than it is at making good operating systems.  -- Linus Torvalds