Making the jump to CSS [Archive]

Cymru

07-24-2003, 01:56 AM

I am a sort-of newcomer to web programming but I am quite good in HTML and CSS. I have been using tables to display the content on the pages, but reading through some of the many topics here discussing how simple modern web standards are and what they can achieve, I am considering making the jump and converting to CSS layouts.

if you want to be "in the biz" you are going to have to roll with the changes or get out, basically. - MotherNatrsSon
There are a good deal of things CSS and DOM can do that HTML will never do as we all know, but apart from this I'm not totally sure why completely eradicating table layouts are compulsory, apart from the fact that they are no longer in "fashion". But time move on, and I don't want to be one of the stragglers still using worthless FONT tags and making NS4-friendly pages for 1% of the browser population that will never look good anyway. :)

Now to the point. I have seen a small number of websites with CSS layouts in all kinds of designs, and in my opinion, I am not that impressed. Sure, some are decent, but none of them so far has made me want to give up table positioning that I had been designing with for a year or so. Even now I still consider table layouts to be as elaborate or as contemporary as one requires, if designed correctly. But I plan to design a site that will follow the latest W3C standards. I wish it to be as slick as it is simple, but I am rather stumped for ideas. I know there are good CSS sites out there, but I have yet to discover one.

I would like you to send me urls of CSS sites you have designed or were impressed with, so I can look at how they were made. I don't intend to copy your ideas of course, but maybe it would give me some much needed inspiration. :thumbsup: And when I make that jump and make a website programmed with CSS and not problematic tables and malicious FONT and B tags, I hope my site will be as modern and fashionable as the rest. :thumbsup:

Regards,
Cymru

Skyzyx

07-24-2003, 03:12 AM

Check out these recent threads:

http://www.codingforums.com/showthread.php?s=&postid=119711
http://www.codingforums.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=23750

MotherNatrsSon

07-24-2003, 05:52 AM

The "sticky" at the top of this forum http://www.codingforums.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=23475
The ones I consider "designed" are Zen Garden, Belaire Displays, Inc.com, Zeldman's, and one I did not see there
http://www.peterbailey.net/

MNS

Cymru

07-24-2003, 01:41 PM

Oh sorry, I didn't notice the sticky. Thanks for your help.

Eskimo

07-24-2003, 08:24 PM

The PI symbol at the bottom of PerterBailey.net is killing me
:D :D

MotherNatrsSon

07-24-2003, 08:28 PM

Originally posted by Cymru
Oh sorry, I didn't notice the sticky. Thanks for your help.

Just thought I'd point you in that direction. Are you considering posting your xhtml/css site here when you complete it?

MNS

ronaldb66

07-25-2003, 07:48 AM

... I'm not totally sure why completely eradicating table layouts are compulsory, apart from the fact that they are no longer in "fashion".
It's not "compulsory" to stop using tables for layout, nor has it to do with "fashion".
If you have pressing arguments to supply "old-school" browsers with a compelling visual presentation, or if you are not comfortable with CSS positioning, or if your layout is too complicated to feasibly implement without the use of tables, there definitely is room for table layouts.
Just be aware of the drawbacks of that approach: chose for a table layout through a well-considered decision, not because "that's what we've always done".

beetle

07-27-2003, 12:30 AM

Originally posted by Eskimo
The PI symbol at the bottom of PerterBailey.net is killing me
:D :D Hehe - thanks. I'm glad at least some people find my easter egg :D

Nightfire

07-27-2003, 12:36 AM

heh, never noticed the pi thingy before

cg9com

07-28-2003, 07:01 AM

Originally posted by beetle
Hehe - thanks. I'm glad at least some people find my easter egg :D
I found it a while back dude. :thumbsup:
But you made it too easy!

Cymru

07-28-2003, 04:27 PM

Thanks for the advice. :) I considered using CSS because I am always with the latest styles, but some of your designs are reputable enough to give me another reason to switch. :thumbsup:

I could add my site here when I am finished. I am still learning my way around web programming, so it could be a while yet though.

zoobie

07-29-2003, 04:13 AM

I wouldn't bother learning css display anymore than designing for Nutscrape. I just read where there are css pagemakers...some free...coming out by Christmas. :cool:

MotherNatrsSon

07-29-2003, 04:58 AM

Originally posted by zoobie
I wouldn't bother learning css display anymore than designing for Nutscrape. I just read where there are css pagemakers...some free...coming out by Christmas. :cool:

LMAO. Like MS Front Page only better. Made by Micro$oft to work best in IE??</sarcasm>:D

Got a link to that info??

MNS

beetle

07-29-2003, 05:10 AM

Originally posted by zoobie
I wouldn't bother learning css display anymore than designing for Nutscrape. I just read where there are css pagemakers...some free...coming out by Christmas. :cool: Bad idea. Having WYSIWYG editors is not a reason to avoid learning HTML now, so I con't see why future CSS editors would be a good reason to not learn CSS then OR now.

zoobie

07-29-2003, 06:20 AM

Who said anything about WYSIWYG? As you can see from these threads, ppl are having tons of workaround trubbles getting pages to display with css. Patience is virtue...I say, let 'em suffer.:D

PS - Are you still refusing to help people who don't see your way?

beetle

07-29-2003, 06:35 AM

Originally posted by zoobie
PS - Are you still refusing to help people who don't see your way? Excuse me? I don't think that's called for. I help many, many (http://www.codingforums.com/memberlist.php?s=&what=topposters&perpage=10) people here on a regular basis.

I know nobody said anyting about WYSIWYGs - but I did, only as a comparative reference.

All I'm saying is learning the code by hand has it's merits and pluses.

brothercake

07-29-2003, 07:03 AM

I agree, it's not called for at all. zoobie I'll thank you to avoid inflaming people with insults or undue aggression.

Caffeine

07-29-2003, 08:20 AM

Originally posted by ronaldb66
It's not "compulsory" to stop using tables for layout, nor has it to do with "fashion".
If you have pressing arguments to supply "old-school" browsers with a compelling visual presentation, or if you are not comfortable with CSS positioning, or if your layout is too complicated to feasibly implement without the use of tables, there definitely is room for table layouts.
Just be aware of the drawbacks of that approach: chose for a table layout through a well-considered decision, not because "that's what we've always done".

I am finding myself in a similar position as the person who started this thread, I was active in www-developing around year 2000-2001, and at that time the pages I made had to work in NS 4.x (ughhh!), now I'm back in business but have a lot of catch-up to do. NS has died, mozilla, gecko, opera among others are new... oh boy. :)

Well, back to the subject, I fail to see the drawbacks with a TABLE-based layout, would you like to explain further ?
I am currently using tables to create the pages I make and I don't see any drawbacks, but if there are some that I don't know about and that I may stumble across in the future, I'd like to know so I can start to learn css more in depth.

ronaldb66

07-29-2003, 09:12 AM

Using tables for layout means that you can't reach full seperation from content en presentation, which means you can't change the way your page is presented ("looks") through style sheets alone; if you need to change the layout, you need to change every single document as well.
The whole "separating content from presentation" concept is that a page only contains content in a structured, meaningful way; style sheets control how it is presented.

On top of that, tables tend to add considerable weight to a page because of all the tags and attributes needed to implement them, increasing file size, download time and bandwidth. This is especially troublesome when tables are nested at multiple levels to force the exact placement of design elements.
Moreover, they are needed on every single page, while a style sheet can be used for several or all pages and only needs to be downloaded once.

That said, in his - excellent! - book "Designing with web standards" Jeffrey Zeldman describes an approach for creating what he calls "transistional layouts": what it boils down to is using a minimum of trimmed down tables for positioning the main layout elements, and use CSS for everything else.

This approach is useful when it's important to offer at least some formatting for older browsers, when the designer is not comfortable with using CSS positioning, or when a layout simply is too complex to achieve with CSS positioning (although in that case you might want to reconsider your layout, too).
It also paves the way for a future conversion to an all-CSS layout.

Caffeine

07-29-2003, 10:19 AM

I got the points, great post ronaldb66! :thumbsup:

But truth to be told, I have not yet seen a CSS-based layout as appealing as some of the HTML-base layouts I have seen.
Maybe thats because css is harder for the designers to understand ? I don't know, I'm just speculating.

Gonna get myself busy with some css-tutorials later today!

Eskimo

07-29-2003, 11:31 AM

ronaldb66 - I can not stress how right you are. Very well put, I owe you a beer.

CSS, like all things, is easy....if you know how to do it. There are not very many professions that have the available learning material as readily accessible as web development. The idea that something is 'hard' or 'not easy' to do being the main argument for not attempting a task is simply lazy. Not the good lazy either, I make a distinction for a reason. I wrote a function that will build entire reports based off database content, because I am to lazy to write them individually. I did not however refuse to learn how because I was too lazy. With the amount of material available, there is no excuse for not learning how do use CSS properly.

Zoobie, its not that some folks would refuse to help because you don't see eye to eye on this subject. The content of your site is of no concern to a coder, its your decision/desecration/expression, how you display and explain your content to a user agent IS biased on a set of rules and standards set forth by the W3C. Believe it or not, but CSS actually gives you MORE of a range of motion and flexibility than tables ever have. Not only that, but it allows you to design sites that are available to multiple types of user agents on many different platforms.

PS
I had to edit this like nine times (I need Ed Rooney (http://us.imdb.com/Title?0091042) to say that....), but I think I'm getting better at writing when I'm drunk...time to go to bed.

ronaldb66

07-29-2003, 11:47 AM

Thanks for the laurels, but the praise should go to Jeffrey Zeldman. I recieved his book I mentioned previously last wednesday, started reading the tuesday after, and got to about three quarters last night.

It's a great read, pointing out all the benefits of using web standards while still approaching the subject in a practical, sensible and often humorous manner. It addresses differences between browsers behaviour, bugs and bug fixes, and all sorts of handy tips to not reach perfection, but the best possible result in an imperfect world.

I'm not in any way related to Mr. Zeldman, nor do I personally profit in any way of his book selling, but I'd like to recommend it warmly to anyone involved in web design.

Eskimo

07-29-2003, 11:51 AM

Just so you know, its a little unnerving to see someone post immediately after you at 5:47 am in the morning at GMT-6.

I take that back: post.replace('unnerving','comforting');

ronaldb66

07-29-2003, 01:30 PM

That's time zones for you: it's early afternoon here, and I'm full at work! :D
Goodnight!

ronaldb66

07-29-2003, 02:48 PM

Taken from The Web Standards Project (http://www.webstandards.org/):
Buymusic's new(!) site: buymusic.com (http://www.buymusic.com/).
"Requires IE", no doctype, deeply nested tables, deprecated attributes, and an accessibility nightmare; here's what it looks like in Lynxviewer: Buymusic, Lynx style (http://www.delorie.com/web/lynxview.cgi?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.buymusic.com%2F).

This is NOT what web design should look like nowadays.

DougBTX

07-29-2003, 03:36 PM

Originally posted by ronaldb66
Taken from The Web Standards Project (http://www.webstandards.org/):
Buymusic's new(!) site: buymusic.com (http://www.buymusic.com/).

"Thank you for visiting BuyMusic.com.

In order to take full advantage of BuyMusic.com's offerings you must be on a Windows Operating System using Internet Explorer version 5.0 or higher."

fools... or taking advantage of someone else's monopoly?

Douglas

beetle

07-29-2003, 03:36 PM

I'd like to add another downside of table-design.

Tables for layout, especially multiple-nested ones, create a high noise:signal ratio. That is, the textual content becomes diluted amongst the mass of presentational HTML. This can actually have a measured effect on how well a pages's content scores with search engines.

Roy Sinclair

07-29-2003, 06:51 PM

Originally posted by beetle
I'd like to add another downside of table-design.

Tables for layout, especially multiple-nested ones, create a high noise:signal ratio. That is, the textual content becomes diluted amongst the mass of presentational HTML. This can actually have a measured effect on how well a pages's content scores with search engines.

The same can be said for the <font> and other presentational tags. Especially when you consider the way those tags are usually added by the various GUI editors, most of those editors will create separate nested font tags if you change the font, size and color of text as separate operations.

Cymru

07-30-2003, 04:42 PM

There sure are a lot to read since I was last here. I have been juggling around with different designs and I'm starting to get the hang of CSS. My designs are much to be desired though, but I'm not giving up. I will post a few templates on this site soon, so you can judge me on my progress. ;)

Glad to hear your responses. It seems a lot of people much perfer tabluar layouts for pretty pages, and I'm not suprised, I still think tables can be a valuable asset. But you ought to take on CSS, you won't believe how simple it is when you fully understand it. (I know I am not the best person to take advice since I am learning too, but it really is easy to understand.) And if you don't think CSS-based layouts look good, why don't you try and make one that will?

But truth to be told, I have not yet seen a CSS-based layout as appealing as some of the HTML-base layouts I have seen.
Maybe thats because css is harder for the designers to understand ? I don't know, I'm just speculating.I don't think CSS is much harder to understand. In my opinion it is possibly easier to learn than any server-side language. It's more on how you implement it. A few sites are impressive when you implement it correctly, and I'm sure there will be more in the future. New programmers will be resistant to CSS right now, but I dare say in a year's time people will grow to realise how useful and powerful it could be.

In order to take full advantage of BuyMusic.com's offerings you must be on a Windows Operating System using Internet Explorer version 5.0 or higher."

fools... or taking advantage of someone else's monopoly?Certainly carelessness, or laziness. No true webmaster would discriminate their viewers in this way. It's better to leave such discrimination on the site about your pet cats.

That said, in his - excellent! - book "Designing with web standards" Jeffrey Zeldman describes an approach for creating what he calls "transistional layouts": what it boils down to is using a minimum of trimmed down tables for positioning the main layout elements, and use CSS for everything else.I haven't actually read this book yet and I am very much interested it finding it. Perhaps I shall go to my library sometime this week. It sounds like we CSS converts could learn a great deal from Jeffrey Zeldman's publication. Is this book available worldwide by the way?

beetle

07-30-2003, 06:06 PM

Originally posted by phlegmatic
IBut truth to be told, I have not yet seen a CSS-based layout as appealing as some of the HTML-base layouts I have seen.
Maybe thats because css is harder for the designers to understand ? I don't know, I'm just speculating.A couple people mentioned it, but I'm not sure if you got the link

CSS Zen Garden (http://www.csszengarden.com/)

Also, a comment about the difficulty of CSS. I don't think CSS in itself is hard - what makes it tricky is that every browser implements the same technology, differently (http://www.xs4all.net/~ppk/css2tests/). If every browser implemented CSS exactly as it is intended by W3C, CSS design and layout would be total cake.

MotherNatrsSon

07-30-2003, 06:35 PM

Originally posted by beetle

Also, a comment about the difficulty of CSS. I don't think CSS in itself is hard - what makes it tricky is that every browser implements the same technology, differently (http://www.xs4all.net/~ppk/css2tests/). If every browser implemented CSS exactly as it is intended by W3C, CSS design and layout would be total cake.

I would agree with this statement. It is knowing all the tricks/hacks to get it to work x-browser that is making my life difficult. :D

MNS

Vladdy

07-30-2003, 07:23 PM

Few more points, which I do not think have been brought up yet.

<rant>

Few years back, when the concept of tabled layouts and WYSIWYG editors evolved the Web was browsed using a desktop PC with predictable resolution and one out of 2-3 browsers. Web pages were treated as a "downloadable brosure". Visitors were treating web as a "new medium" and were easily "wowed" by neat effects.

The current trend is such that the web content is being accessed by variety of devices, from cellphones and PDAs to workstations, all with variety of possible browsers. You can no longer predict what kind of resolution will the device that accesses your web site have that is if it has "resolution" at all i.e. screen readers.

The users are no longer wowed by "visual effects", on contrary they consider them an annoyance. Ability to access INFORMATION becomes more and more important for them leaving "graphical design" as a secondary element.

Just like cars of the 60s with their enomorous size and elaborate curves were replaced by more practical and economical vehicles, the web pages will move from impressing the user to simply delivering information in a way user prefers.

If you want to be at the forefront, forget WYSIWYG editors, and start your web development with the CONTENT. Once you have the sensible markup - apply styles depending on media. Only this approach will guarantee that your information can be universally accessed.

The mind set that "my website does not look the same..." should be long forgotten. It never will and it never should. Presentation will depend on the device. What you need to worry about is "does my website deliver content regardless of the manner in which it is accessed?" If someone dumps the port 80 traffic to a text file and still can understand what the web site is about, chances are you are on the right track.

</rant>

MotherNatrsSon

07-30-2003, 07:46 PM

Originally posted by Vladdy
Few more points, which I do not think have been brought up yet.

The users are no longer wowed by "visual effects", on contrary they consider them an annoyance. Ability to access INFORMATION becomes more and more important for them leaving "graphical design" as a secondary element.

Back to the black text on a white background.

I actually think you have it backwards. The design comes first and if it is a "good" design to begin with it makes the user's ability to access the information a little easier and a little more pleasant.

Example: Zen Garden. He drew his design and layout on paper way before he knew exactly what his content was going to be.

Cheesy, amatuerish graphics, bells and whistles, do little to help create an "image" that the user will identify with.

Plain text on a plain colored background ONLY delivers the information and does little to create a lasting image with a user.

MNS

Vladdy

07-30-2003, 08:17 PM

Originally posted by MotherNatrsSon
Back to the black text on a white background.

I actually think you have it backwards. The design comes first and if it is a "good" design to begin with it makes the user's ability to access the information a little easier and a little more pleasant.
How can you have a design that helps user access information BEFORE you have that informaiton???
Example: Zen Garden. He drew his design and layout on paper way before he knew exactly what his content was going to be.
Not a good example since the content of Zen Garden is the "design", therefore the separation of design and content is very blured and design approach is unclear.

Cheesy, amatuerish graphics, bells and whistles, do little to help create an "image" that the user will identify with.
Plain text on a plain colored background ONLY delivers the information and does little to create a lasting image with a user.

Simple design does not equate with "cheesy, amatuerish and plain text and colored background". Simple design is the one that is void of all elements which do not help presentation of content and does not require being pixel perfect.

beetle

07-30-2003, 08:17 PM

MNS - sorry, but you're wrong again. Every design at the garden (http://www.csszengarden) uses pre-made HTML. In other words, the HTML (content) comes first, the CSS (design) comes 2nd. It is this very point that makes the Zen Garden so interesting. Every design uses the same markup, the same content. People that submit designs aren't allowed to touch the HTML. So it is quite obvious: content first, design second.

Yes, visual presentation aids in understanding, that's why CSS is so important for visual browsers. But it's also important for audible browsers (screen readers). They don't care what the page "looks" like - people who use screen-readers are blind!

Very good points Vladdy. Allow me to quote an excerpt from Jeff's keynote (http://www.veen.com/jeff/archives/000138.html):And let's put an end to the arrogance of masturbatory design. We must stop showing off just how talented we are. The Web doesn't need artists. Right now, it needs artisans. We need to practice our craft.

brothercake

07-30-2003, 08:31 PM

Originally posted by beetle
Yes, visual presentation aids in understanding, that's why CSS is so important for visual browsers. But it's also important for audible browsers (screen readers).
Yeah man, in my experience of screenreaders what makes the biggest difference to usability is the way the HTML is ordered, and how much extraneous text there is.

Positioning navigation bars at the end of the source code, but styling them to be visually at the top, is an example of ordering.

Reducing extraneous information is about getting the screenreader to talk less; a screenreader is annoying to listen to when what it's saying is not directly relevant to its listener; so we can use CSS to avoid hard-coding content that would be better unread.

Here's a trivial, but revealing example - your links have accesskeys and you want to indicate them with the letter in brackets. If you do something like this:

<li><a href="/" title="Home Page" accesskey="h">Home</a> (H)</li>

Then JAWS, which reads out accesskey assignments anyway, will say "home alt plus H right-parenthesis h left-parenthesis".

But, if you do the link like this:

<li id="ak-h"><a href="/" title="Home Page" accesskey="h">Home</a></li>

And then add the letter like this:

#ak-h:after {
content:"(H)";
}

You get the same visual effect, but JAWS only says ""home alt plus H" :)

beetle

07-30-2003, 08:43 PM

Cool, that's a great tip, brothercake. :thumbsup:

MotherNatrsSon

07-30-2003, 09:28 PM

Originally posted by beetle
MNS - sorry, but you're wrong again. Every design at the garden (http://www.csszengarden) uses pre-made HTML. In other words, the HTML (content) comes first, the CSS (design) comes 2nd. It is this very point that makes the Zen Garden so interesting. Every design uses the same markup, the same content. People that submit designs aren't allowed to touch the HTML. So it is quite obvious: content first, design second.

Wrong beetle. I am talking about the original. You are correct on the subsequent designs. I saw a web page with his drawing and the process he went through to get to "The Golden Mean" I do bellive. Can't find a link to it at the moment.

And let's put an end to the arrogance of masturbatory design. We must stop showing off just how talented we are. The Web doesn't need artists. Right now, it needs artisans. We need to practice our craft.

I agree with the "showing off" part, but for those people with all senses in tact and do not need a text reader, or are not "impaired" in some other way, nothing says more or does more than a "good" image. A picture paints a thousand words type thing. This kind of BS has been my argument all along and it seems to support it well, the web is now for "coders" only.

MNS

beetle

07-30-2003, 10:21 PM

Don't tell me I'm wrong when I'm not. At least get your facts straight - it's very clear to see that Golden Mean (http://www.csszengarden.com/?cssfile=017%2F017%2Ecss) is NOT the original, but rather design #17 (http://www.mezzoblue.com/zengarden/alldesigns/).

So yes, Douglas Bowman sketched his design (http://www.stopdesign.com/articles/process/) before making it final, but guess what? He already had the content from CSS Zen Garden as a bare HTML file.but for those people with all senses in tact and do not need a text reader, or are not "impaired" in some other way, nothing says more or does more than a "good" image.Right, that's what CSS and Adobe Photoshop (or your fav image program) are for.

I'm not trying to say the web is for coders only, but the trend is changing for the benefit of the user - not to oust amateurs from making webpages. Browsers do and will continue to support old HTML for quite some time during this transition period. But, inevitably, one day they will not. It just so happens that myself, Vladdy, and many other professionals in this industry recognize the many benefits of "the new way". If you haven't, I suggest you read that keynote I linked to.

I wonder, would you have this much of a problem with the technical complexity of the web if it had always been that way?

I can't help walking away from our conversations feeling like you really don't understand how HTML and CSS work together. I don't mean this to insult you, but I'd like to help you understand if you don't. Am I off base?

MotherNatrsSon

07-30-2003, 10:59 PM

Originally posted by beetle
Don't tell me I'm wrong when I'm not. At least get your facts straight - it's very clear to see that Golden Mean (http://www.csszengarden.com/?cssfile=017%2F017%2Ecss) is NOT the original, but rather design #17 (http://www.mezzoblue.com/zengarden/alldesigns/).

So yes, Douglas Bowman sketched his design (http://www.stopdesign.com/articles/process/) before making it final, but guess what? He already had the content from CSS Zen Garden as a bare HTML file.Right, that's what CSS and Adobe Photoshop (or your fav image program) are for.

I'm not trying to say the web is for coders only, but the trend is changing for the benefit of the user - not to oust amateurs from making webpages. Browsers do and will continue to support old HTML for quite some time during this transition period. But, inevitably, one day they will not. It just so happens that myself, Vladdy, and many other professionals in this industry recognize the many benefits of "the new way". If you haven't, I suggest you read that keynote I linked to.

I wonder, would you have this much of a problem with the technical complexity of the web if it had always been that way?

I can't help walking away from our conversations feeling like you really don't understand how HTML and CSS work together. I don't mean this to insult you, but I'd like to help you understand if you don't. Am I off base?

Sorry. That was the "first" page that came up when I clicked on the link to the site (Zen Garden) without changing the stylesheet so I thought it was the original.

I have had my hands on a computer for little over a year now. I am still a "newbie" when it comes to all the coding stuff. You are probably correct in your thought that I do not fully understand how HTML and CSS work together because my understanding of both is still quite limited. Basically, I am overwhelmed by all the different coding that is now necessary for this, HTML, XHTML,phone, pda, CSS et al and it all has to be coded or styled diffferently. That is where I do not really understand it being easier. With all the browser incompatibility probles with CSS the line I see"You can have one style sheet for a whole site and only change the style sheet to make changes" doesn't make any sense to me.

I open up BBEdit and attempt different things in CSS and HTML pretty much on a daily basis to learn it all.

I am also attempting to learn javascript and perl as well. It all gets rather confusing for someone that spent 5 years on horseback in the wilderness and is attempting to reassimilate into "society". My "mentor" likes my artwork and I have helped her with designs she has done so she has been the one steering me in this direction.

I do see this as a medium, like a canvas, or a piece of stone or wood that I sculpt. To me, the coding part is a "completion" of the creative process and will eventually(if I get good enough) allow me to have more control of the finished product, like the chisels and brushes I use.

Keep on keepin' on :D

MNS

beetle

07-30-2003, 11:12 PM

Well, if you have time, I'd like to hear in your own words what you think HTML is, what CSS is, and how they relate to eachother.

MotherNatrsSon

07-30-2003, 11:18 PM

Originally posted by beetle
Well, if you have time, I'd like to hear in your own words what you think HTML is, what CSS is, and how they relate to eachother.

Ok. I'll have to contemplate that one for awhile, but I will get back to you on it soon

MNS

oracleguy

07-30-2003, 11:27 PM

Originally posted by phlegmatic
But truth to be told, I have not yet seen a CSS-based layout as appealing as some of the HTML-base layouts I have seen.
Maybe thats because css is harder for the designers to understand ? I don't know, I'm just speculating.

It also could be that the ratio of css-based layouts to table layouts is quite low. More coders need to get with the program and start learning and practicing making CSS-based sites.

MotherNatrsSon

07-30-2003, 11:46 PM

Originally posted by beetle
Well, if you have time, I'd like to hear in your own words what you think HTML is, what CSS is, and how they relate to eachother.

I have thought a little on this.

I guess I would say that HTML is what I have used to attempt to get the page to look and deliver what I need it too. HTML is a language to communicate with the "machine". It gives commands that tell it what I want my page to say and look like (realize I still have <font> tags on my site, but validates as HTML 4.01 transitional).

CSS is a "new" way to get the things on a page to position themselves mainly. There are some effects (tricks/hacks) that can be used for visuals in it but it is mainly for positioning of content on a page.

How they relate? CSS (if you get it to work properly) positions blocks of text(paragraphs, headers etc) and images that are comprised of HTML.

MNS

Eskimo

07-31-2003, 12:41 AM

W3Schools (http://www.w3schools.com) has a quote that I have been thinking about ever since this debate came up.

XML was designed to describe data and to focus on what data is.
HTML was designed to display data and to focus on how data looks.

I don't feel that his is true anymore. It appears to me, that HTML is becoming more like XML (guess that explains XHTML). It describes WHAT content is (<h1,2...n>, <p>, <blockquote>, ext..) and that CSS will tell a user agent how to display that data. Not just positioning, but visual formatting, including images as well. By utilizing this method, you allow your message to be transmitted to multiple agents in any format they wish to display it in, because they understand WHAT your content is.

There is no downside to this, your potential market increases to include non-conventional web browsers. I can't think of a reason not to allow those potential clients to view my customers sites. If they make a pantload of cash, they tell their other business partners about me, I get more contracts and I make more money.

If I'm wrong in my (very) general meanderings on the differences between the two. Please by all means set me straight.

beetle

07-31-2003, 12:53 AM

Right you are.

Remember, XML is just a generic set of guidelines for creating markup languages. HTML is a markup language, but it doesn't follow the rules of XML.

Enter, XHTML. XHTML is HTML written in XML. That is, XHTML is a markup language designed to closely mimick HTML, but loses the presentational underpinnings (<font> tags, etc), and requires XML strictness (closing all tags, quoted attributes, etc).

So, yes. XHTML is designed to describe data and focus on what data is.

To that data, we can apply CSS stylesheets, which tell the user-agent (most commonly, a web-browser) how this data is to be presented. The position of elements, the color of text, margins, padding, borders, background images, etc. Since none of these things have anything to do with the content, are therefore responsiblity of the CSS.

Does that make more sense now?

MotherNatrsSon

07-31-2003, 12:55 AM

I read "jeff's" keynote. He comes from a corporate p.o.v. I would have chosen this quote from his speech"

But don't forget: The Web needs to be elegant. It needs to be beautiful. It needs to be desirable. But it also needs to be useful, and intuitive, and functional.

Eskimo:

I don't feel that his is true anymore. It appears to me, that HTML is becoming more like XML (guess that explains XHTML). It describes WHAT content is (<h1,2...n>, <p>, <blockquote>, ext..) and that CSS will tell a user agent how to display that data. Not just positioning, but visual formatting, including images as well. By utilizing this method, you allow your message to be transmitted to multiple agents in any format they wish to display it in, because they understand WHAT your content is.

I agree to a degree with your post also. Way back in the day when I was in high school, I took FORTRAN and COBOL(dated myself there) and it seems we are going "back" to the gibberish that was those languages, which were very difficult.

CSS alone does not make your pages able to be transmitted to multiple user agents unless you write a style sheet for each kind of device, including printing, that someone may use, unless I am really mistaken.

MNS

Eskimo

07-31-2003, 01:13 AM

Originally posted by MotherNatrsSon

CSS alone does not make your pages able to be transmitted to multiple user agents unless you write a style sheet for each kind of device, including printing, that someone may use, unless I am really mistaken.

MNS [/B]

For some user agents, you don't even need to make a style sheet because they ignore them completely and just show the bare HTML result. Which is why its important not to use <font> tags for headings and what not, the agent will toss that in with general content. I never stated that CSS made your site easily transmittable by itself. I must not have written clearly, that's my fault. By using well formed (all tags close) XHTML as your foundation, and CSS for your aesthetics, you give those other agents a chance to view your content properly. Think of XHTML as the frame of a house, No carpet ,paintings, or even walls. A dirt yard and what not. You can walk through the house and understand what you are doing, because the ground work is there. With CSS for agents that support them, you can now have pretty things, like shrubberies that give off a layer effect.

XHTML is important to use because the smaller devices don't have the power a pc does. They can't have a browser that corrects errors (missing or open tags). The DTD for them is forced to be VERY basic. Thats why XHTML is great for those.