CSS is SHITE
- Started
- Last post
- 61 Responses
- kelpie0
+3
I've never had a problem. If anything - it forces you too.
determinedmoth
(Sep 23 05, 07:23)I don't care Moth, you're a cunt.
- kelpie0
*pisses
- determinedmoth0
haha.
*Pisses on kelpie
- kelpie0
ew
sugarpuffs
- toastie0
well, the designer is the one who determines how the layout is going to look, so it is his/hers responsibility to account for the medium that they are designing for.
- mg330
If you can't design AND code, don't they ship you off to the jungle?
- toastie0
they should.
- bot0
I heard kelpie is rubbish
- mg330
- kelpie0
my lordy, this issue tends to bring the child out in a few people eh?
- seed0
"I'll tell you what. In several months time whenever the W3C roll out XHTML 2.0, all these people who refuse to accept CSS are simply going to be out of a job."
"What are you gonna do when you wake up one day and find that the img tag is deprecated? Insist your users use old browsers?"
determinedmoth
(Sep 23 05, 06:22)I can't imagine that this will happen. Isn't one of the main reasons we are now coding in XHTML/CSS forward compatibility. If so I can't see how future browsers would drop XHTML 1.0 in the near future. If they do where is the forward compatibility everyone is speaking of?
- seed0
This is an old article so I dont know if it's still valid:
http://www.zeldman.com/daily/010…
"But the W3C could rename the specification they are now calling XHTML 2. They might call it AML (Advanced Markup Language) or MML (Millennial Markup Language) or anything else they like.
Renaming the spec would relieve developer anxieties and make clear that the language now called XHTML 2 is not intended as a replacement but as an alternative to the markup with which all of us are familiar. Just as Illustrator is an alternative to Photoshop. Different tools for different jobs."
- seed0
Interesting (from w3):
However, thanks to XML and style sheets, such strict element-wise backwards compatibility is no longer necessary, since an XML-based browser, of which at the time of writing means more than 95% of browsers in use, can process new markup languages without having to be updated.
- determinedmoth0
What the fuck does Zeldman know about it?
Point is - CSS, if you like it or not, is the future. XHTML 2.0 is the future, and browsers WILL adapt, just the Borg, and you my friends, will concede or simply be assimilated.
- HRTWRK0
LOUD NOISES.
Sidenote: I learned HTML and CSS at the same time, and can't for the life of me imagine not being able to use CSS to make sites. It's (dare I say it) very logical to me.
- mg330
I think we need to start a CSS gang.
- determinedmoth0
CSS would take .SWF in a fight.
In fact, CSS could just refuse to have .SWF render.
Owned.
- kelpie0
Owned.
determinedmoth
(Sep 23 05, 08:10)in a sort of passive aggressive way Moth (you poofter).
I have to say at this juncture that I dig font tags in a big nearly sexual way, and I'll stick the head in anyone who disagrees.
so there.
- Dancer0
Kelpie you bring a tear to my eye