Is the end of HTML as we know it?

**Jerry Stuckle** · Nov 11 '07, 12:05 AM

Re: Is the end of CSS as we know it?

Chris F.A. Johnson wrote:

On 2007-11-10, 1001 Webs wrote:

>On Nov 10, 7:20 pm, "André Gillibert"

...

>>But, most CSS developers are highly ignorant, and have fundamentally wrong
>>design principles, such as "it should render identically eveywhere".

>I fail to see what's "fundamenta lly wrong" with that.

>
It is impossible, that's why.
>

>It is a basic graphic design principle.

>
For paper, perhaps. On the Web, you _cannot_ know exactly how a
page will look in every browser, not even in all copies of the
same browser.
>

>When you design a magazine or newspaper for example, every page should
>look the same in terms of structure.

>
The Web is not paper.
>

>You can play with the headers, image positioning, etc. but all pages
>should follow the same pattern.

>
Which, on the better sites, they do.
>

>That's why you use Templates and grids.

>
Exactly.
>

>>Bad news: I've to use many web sites that've been designed by ignorant web
>>designers.
>>If CSS didn't exist or was harder to use by bad web designers, I wouldn't
>>get all that bad stuff.

>And if CSS was better implemented and was easier to use by every web
>designers, you will get even less bad stuff.

>
That's like trying to make a car that cannot go through a red light,
that cannot exceed the speed limit, that cannot have a misaligned
mirror, etc.....
>

>>That's true to a much larger extent for
>>JavaScript. 99% of the JavaScript of the web is harmful or at best useless.
>>I often disable author's CSS, but, unfortunately, there're more and more
>>pages that become hard to read without author's CSS.
>>>
>>>While there's some truth to that argument, at some point you need to
>>>be pragmatic. If 99% of the web developers out there are getting it
>>>wrong, maybe the tool needs to be more user friendly.
>>No, it's misused BECAUSE it's too friendly. You don't need to read any
>>spec to use it!
>>e.g. WISYWIG editors worsen the thing.

>I beg to differ.

>
Differ from what?
>

>Many of those tags are useless and not recommended,
>so why on Earth are they allowed?

>
Who is going to disallow them? And how?
>
There are many tags that are deprecated or not allowed in HTML
4.01, for example, but browsers still support them because of the
millions of legacy pages on the WWW.
>

>Could you please tell me what's the use of, for example font-size:
>10px; ?

>
To make the text unreadably small (or too large).
>

>>In the "CSS is a car" analogy, I would say that, you need a driver license
>>to drive a car (because it's powerful and dangerous) but you don't need a
>>license to use the powerful and dangerous CSS. Imagine if 3 years old
>>children were allowed to drive a car without license?

>Even if you have a CSS license you can easily go wrong.

>
Just as in a car.
>
...
>

Forget it, Chris. He has absolutely no idea what he's talking about and
is just trying to raise hell. My recommendation is to ignore any of his
posts.

And maybe one of these days his mommy will find out what he's doing and
take his computer away from him.

--
=============== ===
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.
jstucklex@attgl obal.net
=============== ===

**Jerry Stuckle** · Nov 11 '07, 12:05 AM

Re: Is the end of CSS as we know it?

Jonathan N. Little wrote:

1001 Webs wrote:

>On Nov 10, 7:20 pm, "André Gillibert"
><tabkanDELETET HIS...@yahodele tethato.frwrote :

>

>>There's a difference between C++ and CSS.
>>Most C++ developers are somehow trained and produce quite correct
>>application s.
>>But, most CSS developers are highly ignorant, and have fundamentally
>>wrong
>>design principles, such as "it should render identically eveywhere".

>I fail to see what's "fundamenta lly wrong" with that.
>It is a basic graphic design principle.
>When you design a magazine or newspaper for example, every page should
>look the same in terms of structure.
>You can play with the headers, image positioning, etc. but all pages
>should follow the same pattern.
>That's why you use Templates and grids.

>
Ah! But that reveals the root of your error concerning web design and I
am an artist and graphic designer. The web is not paper. An overused
statement but none the less true. With magazines, newspapers, posters,
or whatever, there is one constant...the paper. As the designer in such
media the "viewport", the dimensions of the piece of paper, is known and
unchanging. It is is integrally part of the design process, if you are
any good ;-) You have a static canvas upon which to build your design.
>
With a webpage you have no such constants, no matter how much you (the
big universal 'you') wish to deny it. Holding you breath. Tantrums on
the floor. Jumping and screaming will not change that fundamental fact
that if the content is on the web, as the designer, you have no control
over the size of the viewport used by the users. Additionally, nor what
fonts your page is rendered in. Or in what color depth your images with
display or if your image will be seen at all! Or even if your text is
displayed at all for it might be a screen reader.
>
Now you can try and make your page "work" only for the parameters that
you have narrowly defined hence making it difficult for conditions
outside your constraints. But all that will accomplish is deny access,
"closing the book" for some users that might have been potential
customers, which is usually contrary to the original purpose of
"publishing " the page on the Web.
>

Ah, Jonathan, but you don't understand him. He claims he's a graphics
designer. But the only real proof he has presented is the idea he can
control every aspect of the visitor's experience. But then again, that
is normal for poor graphic designers. They have to control the
experience, instead of enhancing it.

--
=============== ===
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.
jstucklex@attgl obal.net
=============== ===

**Bergamot** · Nov 11 '07, 07:05 PM

Re: Is the end of CSS as we know it?

1001 Webs wrote:

>
Pixels and ems that don't render equally across different browsers.

Neither of those have anything to do with the browser.

Pixel sizes are determined by the individual screen settings, not the
browser. Em sizes are determined by the font being used.

Both are set (consciously or not) by the individual user, as it should be.

--
Berg

**Travis Newbury** · Nov 11 '07, 08:15 PM

Re: Is the end of CSS as we know it?

On Nov 10, 5:33 pm, "Jonathan N. Little" <lws4...@centra lva.net>
wrote:

1001 Webs wrote:

On Nov 10, 7:20 pm, "André Gillibert"
<tabkanDELETETH IS...@yahodelet ethato.frwrote:

There's a difference between C++ and CSS.
Most C++ developers are somehow trained and produce quite correct
applications.
But, most CSS developers are highly ignorant, and have fundamentally wrong
design principles, such as "it should render identically eveywhere".

I fail to see what's "fundamenta lly wrong" with that.
It is a basic graphic design principle.
When you design a magazine or newspaper for example, every page should
look the same in terms of structure.
You can play with the headers, image positioning, etc. but all pages
should follow the same pattern.
That's why you use Templates and grids.

>
Ah! But that reveals the root of your error concerning web design and I
am an artist and graphic designer. The web is not paper.

This is where we disagree, while you are right, the web is not paper,
the fact is there is nothing wrong with designing a web page so it
tried to simulate a structured design. Just a different way to design
for the web. Neither design style is any more right or wrong than any
other.

I can easily design a flexible design. But sometime I want a specific
look and feel to the page. And while it may not work on everyone's
configuration, I am confident that the visitors that fall out because
they can't see it is statistically insignificant when the designer
knows the audience.

**Travis Newbury** · Nov 11 '07, 08:25 PM

Re: Is the end of CSS as we know it?

On Nov 11, 7:56 am, Kevin <kevinlen...@la keareawebs.comw rote:

I think that part of the problem is so many people out there claim to
be web designers and developers which indicates an advanced level of
expertise in coding which they do not possess.

No the problem is many web developers can not see there are more than
one way to skin a cat.

**dorayme** · Nov 11 '07, 09:25 PM

Re: Is the end of CSS as we know it?

In article
<1194811703.726 729.167560@50g2 000hsm.googlegr oups.com>,
Travis Newbury <TravisNewbury@ hotmail.comwrot e:

I am confident that the visitors that fall out because
they can't see it is statistically insignificant when the designer
knows the audience.

By putting in the last phrase, you cover everything. Well done
again, Mr. Master of the Motherhood Statement.

--
dorayme

**Travis Newbury** · Nov 12 '07, 10:55 AM

Re: Is the end of CSS as we know it?

On Nov 11, 4:24 pm, dorayme <doraymeRidT... @optusnet.com.a uwrote:

In article
<1194811703.726 729.167...@50g2 000hsm.googlegr oups.com>,
Travis Newbury <TravisNewb...@ hotmail.comwrot e:
>

I am confident that the visitors that fall out because
they can't see it is statistically insignificant when the designer
knows the audience.

>
By putting in the last phrase, you cover everything. Well done
again, Mr. Master of the Motherhood Statement.
>
--
dorayme

Common sense dictates as much

**Travis Newbury** · Nov 12 '07, 03:15 PM

Re: Is the end of CSS as we know it?

On Nov 12, 9:07 am, Kevin <kevinlen...@la keareawebs.comw rote:

I think that part of the problem is so many people out there claim to
be web designers and developers which indicates an advanced level of
expertise in coding which they do not possess.

No the problem is many web developers can not see there are more than
one way to skin a cat.

Well I don't know about any of you in here but I have to say it was my
opinion that the term "webmaster" by definition implied no specific
level of knowledge....

My point is there are many different web design philosophies. None
more right and the other.

**Tim Streater** · Nov 12 '07, 04:05 PM

Re: Is the end of CSS as we know it?

In article <1194880439.017 332.232280@d55g 2000hsg.googleg roups.com>,
1001 Webs <1001webs@gmail .comwrote:

Neither XHTML nor JavaScript are required to design websites nowadays.

OK, so how do I do data validation based on user input? How do I make
the content of a <selectvary depending on the user's choice in another
<select??

**1001 Webs** · Nov 12 '07, 04:15 PM

Re: Is the end of CSS as we know it?

On Nov 12, 4:56 pm, Tim Streater <tim.strea...@d ante.org.ukwrot e:

In article <1194880439.017 332.232...@d55g 2000hsg.googleg roups.com>,
1001Webs <1001w...@gmail .comwrote:
>

Neither XHTML nor JavaScript are required to design websites nowadays.

>
OK, so how do I do data validation based on user input? How do I make
the content of a <selectvary depending on the user's choice in another
<select??

http://search.techrepublic.com.com/search/validation.html

**Andy Dingley** · Nov 12 '07, 06:55 PM

Re: Is the end of CSS as we know it?

On 12 Nov, 15:56, Tim Streater <tim.strea...@d ante.org.ukwrot e:

In article <1194880439.017 332.232...@d55g 2000hsg.googleg roups.com>,
1001 Webs <1001w...@gmail .comwrote:
>

Neither XHTML nor JavaScript are required to design websites nowadays.

>
OK, so how do I do data validation based on user input?

It's not a _requirement_. You can still do it purely server-side,
which you ought to support as a fallback anyway for both security and
accessibility reasons.

**Tim Streater** · Nov 12 '07, 08:45 PM

Re: Is the end of CSS as we know it?

In article <1194893219.052 938.123110@i13g 2000prf.googleg roups.com>,
Andy Dingley <dingbat@codesm iths.comwrote:

On 12 Nov, 15:56, Tim Streater <tim.strea...@d ante.org.ukwrot e:

In article <1194880439.017 332.232...@d55g 2000hsg.googleg roups.com>,
1001 Webs <1001w...@gmail .comwrote:

Neither XHTML nor JavaScript are required to design websites nowadays.

OK, so how do I do data validation based on user input?

>
It's not a _requirement_. You can still do it purely server-side,
which you ought to support as a fallback anyway for both security and
accessibility reasons.

Of more importance, actually, is the second question I asked, about
modifying one <selectbased on the results of another. In some cases I
use Javascript all by itself, when the contents of the select are
limited to a few values, and if, for example, the user choosing "A" in
<select1 means they must be prevented from choosing "B" in <select2.

Where I really need to restrict the contents of another <selectI put
it in an iFrame, which is passed the results of <select1 and then
displays <select2. I still have to use javaScript to ensure that the
iFrame <selectis passed a useful parameter and so displays right
subset of values.

My app simply doesn't scale without this sort of technique.

Which is why I complain when I see blanket statements like "JavaScript
is not required to design websites these days".

**Jerry Stuckle** · Nov 12 '07, 10:15 PM

Re: Is the end of CSS as we know it?

Tim Streater wrote:

In article <1194893219.052 938.123110@i13g 2000prf.googleg roups.com>,
Andy Dingley <dingbat@codesm iths.comwrote:
>

>On 12 Nov, 15:56, Tim Streater <tim.strea...@d ante.org.ukwrot e:

>>In article <1194880439.017 332.232...@d55g 2000hsg.googleg roups.com>,
>> 1001 Webs <1001w...@gmail .comwrote:
>>>
>>>Neither XHTML nor JavaScript are required to design websites nowadays.
>>OK, so how do I do data validation based on user input?

>It's not a _requirement_. You can still do it purely server-side,
>which you ought to support as a fallback anyway for both security and
>accessibilit y reasons.

>
Of more importance, actually, is the second question I asked, about
modifying one <selectbased on the results of another. In some cases I
use Javascript all by itself, when the contents of the select are
limited to a few values, and if, for example, the user choosing "A" in
<select1 means they must be prevented from choosing "B" in <select2.
>
Where I really need to restrict the contents of another <selectI put
it in an iFrame, which is passed the results of <select1 and then
displays <select2. I still have to use javaScript to ensure that the
iFrame <selectis passed a useful parameter and so displays right
subset of values.
>
My app simply doesn't scale without this sort of technique.
>
Which is why I complain when I see blanket statements like "JavaScript
is not required to design websites these days".
>

Tim,

You don't even need to use an iframe to do it. Works fine without one.

--
=============== ===
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.
jstucklex@attgl obal.net
=============== ===

**1001 Webs** · Nov 12 '07, 11:05 PM

Re: Is the end of CSS as we know it?

On Nov 12, 11:14 pm, Jerry Stuckle <jstuck...@attg lobal.netwrote:

Tim Streater wrote:

In article <1194893219.052 938.123...@i13g 2000prf.googleg roups.com>,
Andy Dingley <ding...@codesm iths.comwrote:

>

On 12 Nov, 15:56, Tim Streater <tim.strea...@d ante.org.ukwrot e:
>In article <1194880439.017 332.232...@d55g 2000hsg.googleg roups.com>,
> 1001 Webs <1001w...@gmail .comwrote:

>

>>Neither XHTML nor JavaScript are required to design websites nowadays.
>OK, so how do I do data validation based on user input?
It's not a _requirement_. You can still do it purely server-side,
which you ought to support as a fallback anyway for both security and
accessibility reasons.

>

Of more importance, actually, is the second question I asked, about
modifying one <selectbased on the results of another. In some cases I
use Javascript all by itself, when the contents of the select are
limited to a few values, and if, for example, the user choosing "A" in
<select1 means they must be prevented from choosing "B" in <select2.

>

Where I really need to restrict the contents of another <selectI put
it in an iFrame, which is passed the results of <select1 and then
displays <select2. I still have to use javaScript to ensure that the
iFrame <selectis passed a useful parameter and so displays right
subset of values.

>

My app simply doesn't scale without this sort of technique.

>

Which is why I complain when I see blanket statements like "JavaScript
is not required to design websites these days".

>
Tim,
>
You don't even need to use an iframe to do it. Works fine without one.

Oh, shut the flunk up, really !!!
How would you know?
Can't you stop for a second making a fool yourself ???

What a disgusting pathetic CRIMINAL troll you are...

Tell us moron, how would you do it?
It's an straight question, just paste the code here.

**Travis Newbury** · Nov 13 '07, 05:35 PM

Re: Is the end of CSS as we know it?

On Nov 13, 11:07 am, Kevin <kevinlen...@la keareawebs.comw rote:

Is the end of HTML as we know it?

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment