Anyone still hand-coding web sites?

[Isofarro]

Re: Anyone still hand-coding web sites?

Jonathan Snook wrote:
[color=blue]
> But it's not like you can take
> advantage of the full CSS1 and CSS2 spec and expect to have it work in all
> browsers.[/color]

Well, if that is your requirement - what are you using that "work in all
browsers"?


--
Iso.
FAQs: http://html-faq.com http://alt-html.org http://allmyfaqs.com/
Recommended Hosting: http://www.affordablehost.com/
Web Design Tutorial: http://www.sitepoint.com/article/1010

[Eric Jarvis]

Re: Anyone still hand-coding web sites?

Jonathan Snook wrote:[color=blue]
> "EightNineThree " <uce@ftc.gov> wrote in message
> news:blounr$d62 $1@ngspool-d02.news.aol.co m...[color=green][color=darkred]
> > > I tried, but CSS is badly supported. :([/color]
> >
> > Uh, no.[/color]
>
> Uh, yes.
>
> I know, I know... you're saying that Mozilla has really great support. And
> heck, even IE does a half decent job. But it's not like you can take
> advantage of the full CSS1 and CSS2 spec and expect to have it work in all
> browsers.
>[/color]

no more so than anything else...there is a whole bunch of imperfectly
supported html...if anything support for css 1 is more consistent than
support for any flavour of html...css 2 is, I'll admit, patchily supported
as yet

--
eric

https://www.ericjarvis.co.uk

all these years I've waited for the revolution
and all we end up getting is spin

[Jonathan Snook]

Re: Anyone still hand-coding web sites?

"Isofarro" <spamblock@spam detector.co.uk> wrote in message
news:rhaplb.2l1 .ln@sidious.iso lani.co.uk...[color=blue]
> Jonathan Snook wrote:
>[color=green]
> > But it's not like you can take
> > advantage of the full CSS1 and CSS2 spec and expect to have it work in[/color][/color]
all[color=blue][color=green]
> > browsers.[/color]
>
> Well, if that is your requirement - what are you using that "work in all
> browsers"?[/color]

My requirement in running my personal site is that it "works" in all
browsers but doesn't have to look the _same_ in all browsers. For this, I
use a table-less design and CSS to make it look decent in more recent
browsers but to have it degrade well (hopefully) in other UA's.

For corporate and government sites, where users often still have N4 on their
desktop, I have to comprimise (due to existing standards or other project
requirements) by creating a basic shell using tables and then using the
parts of the CSS spec (things like font-family, color, etc) that will still
make it look okay.

Jonathan


--

http://www.snook.ca/

[Isofarro]

Re: Anyone still hand-coding web sites?

Jonathan Snook wrote:
[color=blue]
> "Isofarro" <spamblock@spam detector.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:rhaplb.2l1 .ln@sidious.iso lani.co.uk...[color=green]
>> Jonathan Snook wrote:
>>[color=darkred]
>> > But it's not like you can take
>> > advantage of the full CSS1 and CSS2 spec and expect to have it work in[/color][/color]
> all[color=green][color=darkred]
>> > browsers.[/color]
>>
>> Well, if that is your requirement - what are you using that "work in all
>> browsers"?[/color]
>
> My requirement in running my personal site is that it "works" in all
> browsers but doesn't have to look the _same_ in all browsers.[/color]

So CSS does this.


--
Iso.
FAQs: http://html-faq.com http://alt-html.org http://allmyfaqs.com/
Recommended Hosting: http://www.affordablehost.com/
Web Design Tutorial: http://www.sitepoint.com/article/1010

[Eric Jarvis]

Re: Anyone still hand-coding web sites?

Jonathan Snook wrote:[color=blue]
> "Isofarro" <spamblock@spam detector.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:rhaplb.2l1 .ln@sidious.iso lani.co.uk...[color=green]
> > Jonathan Snook wrote:
> >[color=darkred]
> > > But it's not like you can take
> > > advantage of the full CSS1 and CSS2 spec and expect to have it work in[/color][/color]
> all[color=green][color=darkred]
> > > browsers.[/color]
> >
> > Well, if that is your requirement - what are you using that "work in all
> > browsers"?[/color]
>
> My requirement in running my personal site is that it "works" in all
> browsers but doesn't have to look the _same_ in all browsers. For this, I
> use a table-less design and CSS to make it look decent in more recent
> browsers but to have it degrade well (hopefully) in other UA's.
>
> For corporate and government sites, where users often still have N4 on their
> desktop, I have to comprimise (due to existing standards or other project
> requirements) by creating a basic shell using tables and then using the
> parts of the CSS spec (things like font-family, color, etc) that will still
> make it look okay.
>[/color]

I don't understand this...even Netscape 4 allows some css 1 layout...it
certainly has support for float which gets you enough layout options to at
leach match a table layout...the @import hack allows one to exploit
Netscape 4's limited css support to the full and still have a "sensible"
stylesheet too

--
eric

https://www.ericjarvis.co.uk

all these years I've waited for the revolution
and all we end up getting is spin

[Alan J. Flavell]

Re: Anyone still hand-coding web sites?

On Sun, 5 Oct 2003, Jonathan Snook wrote:

[about CSS][color=blue]
> I know, I know... you're saying that Mozilla has really great support.[/color]

Lynx has perfect support for CSS: it reliably ignores it. This is a
perfectly fine option - for example, when the browsing situation is so
far away from what the author probably had in mind.

You can't say the same for table layouts, for example.

What is really inexcusable, though, are browsers which dimly
understdand CSS but do something so different than what the spec wants
them to do as to make the page useless. If they don't reliably
understand a construct they should ignore it (indeed, for some kinds
of "don't understand" this is a mandatory requirement of the CSS spec,
not that I expect a certain vendor to comply with mandatory
requirements from the IETF -or- the W3C in my lifetime...)

[Jonathan Snook]

Re: Anyone still hand-coding web sites?

"Eric Jarvis" <web@ericjarvis .co.uk> wrote in message
news:MPG.19ea53 586d2ca7d498b91 7@News.CIS.DFN. DE...[color=blue]
> Jonathan Snook wrote:[color=green]
> > "Isofarro" <spamblock@spam detector.co.uk> wrote in message
> > news:rhaplb.2l1 .ln@sidious.iso lani.co.uk...[color=darkred]
> > > Jonathan Snook wrote:
> > >
> > > > But it's not like you can take
> > > > advantage of the full CSS1 and CSS2 spec and expect to have it work[/color][/color][/color]
in[color=blue][color=green]
> > all[color=darkred]
> > > > browsers.[/color][/color]
> I don't understand this...even Netscape 4 allows some css 1 layout...it
> certainly has support for float which gets you enough layout options to at
> leach match a table layout...the @import hack allows one to exploit
> Netscape 4's limited css support to the full and still have a "sensible"
> stylesheet too[/color]

Read the message again and you'll notice that I said "due to existing
standards or other project requirements" (and by standards I mean corporate
standards). These things are not in my control and force me to use tables
for layout.

I hope that made it a little clearer.

Jonathan


--

http://www.snook.ca/

[Kris]

Re: Anyone still hand-coding web sites?

In article <7250bd38.03100 42154.2a26f445@ posting.google. com>,
d2003xx@yahoo.c om (d2003xx) wrote:
[color=blue][color=green][color=darkred]
> > > Hmmmm... I code php to produce html pages.... (not embedding php in
> > > html) I started to use this because the layout of html pages becomes
> > > too complex (hundreds of tables in one page). And it can improve
> > > maintainablity a lot.[/color]
> >
> > Replace as much of the presentational HTML by CSS and you will be
> > cheering. PHP/CSS/Structural HTML is a very good combination.[/color]
>
> I tried, but CSS is badly supported. :([/color]

My experience is the opposite. And besides, there is no point in a
layout that sustains in all situations. A site that 'works' in all
situations is something far more valuable.

--
Kris
kristiaan@xs4al l.netherlands (nl)
"We called him Tortoise because he taught us" said the Mock Turtle.

[Kris]

Re: Anyone still hand-coding web sites?

In article
<wfVfb.231242$L nr1.32039@news0 1.bloor.is.net. cable.rogers.co m>,
"Jonathan Snook" <goto_www.snook .ca@snook.ca> wrote:
[color=blue][color=green]
> > Uh, no.[/color]
>
> Uh, yes.
>
> I know, I know... you're saying that Mozilla has really great support. And
> heck, even IE does a half decent job. But it's not like you can take
> advantage of the full CSS1 and CSS2 spec and expect to have it work in all
> browsers.[/color]

Not immediatly. Don't give up practicing, though.

--
Kris
kristiaan@xs4al l.netherlands (nl)
"We called him Tortoise because he taught us" said the Mock Turtle.

[Stan Brown]

Workable,, not the same (Re: Anyone still hand-coding web sites?)

In article
<X%Wfb.232202$L nr1.219290@news 01.bloor.is.net .cable.rogers.c om> in
comp.infosystem s.www.authoring.html, Jonathan Snook
<goto_www.snook .ca@snook.ca> wrote:[color=blue]
>My requirement in running my personal site is that it "works" in all
>browsers but doesn't have to look the _same_ in all browsers.[/color]

This should be emblazoned on the forehead of every Web designer.

So _much_ effort is wasted trying to get pages to look the same in
different browsers, when the only one who will know is the author.
With the possible exception of people who review Web sites for a
living, no user who is trying to get information cares what the site
looks like in a browser other than the one she happens to be using -
- provided the browser she's using can display the information.

--
Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Cortland County, New York, USA

http://OakRoadSystems.com/

HTML 4.01 spec: http://www.w3.org/TR/html401/
validator: http://validator.w3.org/
CSS 2 spec: http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-CSS2/
2.1 changes: http://www.w3.org/TR/CSS21/changes.html
validator: http://jigsaw.w3.org/css-validator/

[Jonathan Snook]

Re: Anyone still hand-coding web sites?


"Kris" <kristiaan@xs4a ll.netherlands> wrote in message
news:kristiaan-508C67.00233706 102003@news1.ne ws.xs4all.nl...[color=blue][color=green][color=darkred]
> > > Uh, no.[/color]
> >
> > Uh, yes.
> >
> > I know, I know... you're saying that Mozilla has really great support.[/color][/color]
And[color=blue][color=green]
> > heck, even IE does a half decent job. But it's not like you can take
> > advantage of the full CSS1 and CSS2 spec and expect to have it work in[/color][/color]
all[color=blue][color=green]
> > browsers.[/color]
>
> Not immediatly. Don't give up practicing, though.[/color]

I'm confused. Keep practicing what? Are you saying keep using CSS because
browsers will eventually make use of it? If so, sure. I'm not about to argue
with you. CSS saves me more time then font tags and tables ever did. :)

Jonathan


--

http://www.snook.ca/

[d2003xx]

Re: Anyone still hand-coding web sites?

Barbara de Zoete <b_de_zoete@hot mail.com> wrote in message news:<blol34$e3 2bc$1@ID-52872.news.uni-berlin.de>...[color=blue]
> d2003xx schreef:
>[color=green]
> > Kris schreef:[/color]
>[color=green][color=darkred]
> >> d2003xx schreef:[/color][/color]
>[color=green][color=darkred]
> >>>Hmmmm... I code php to produce html pages.... (not embedding php in
> >>>html) I started to use this because the layout of html pages becomes
> >>>too complex (hundreds of tables in one page). And it can improve
> >>>maintainabli ty a lot.
> >>
> >>Replace as much of the presentational HTML by CSS and you will be
> >>cheering. PHP/CSS/Structural HTML is a very good combination.[/color]
> >
> > I tried, but CSS is badly supported. :([/color]
>
> Now this is news to me. Why do you think "CSS is badly supported" ?[/color]

For example, "display: block" and "position: absolute"... Try to use
them to control the layout on different browsers and you will see.

[Kris]

Re: Anyone still hand-coding web sites?

In article
<la4gb.35151$ko %.15549@news04. bloor.is.net.ca ble.rogers.com> ,
"Jonathan Snook" <goto_www.snook .ca@snook.ca> wrote:
[color=blue][color=green][color=darkred]
> > > heck, even IE does a half decent job. But it's not like you can take
> > > advantage of the full CSS1 and CSS2 spec and expect to have it work in[/color][/color]
> all[color=green][color=darkred]
> > > browsers.[/color]
> >
> > Not immediatly. Don't give up practicing, though.[/color]
>
> I'm confused. Keep practicing what?[/color]

CSS of course. And master yourself in what some browsers do with it.
Just like we all did when TABLEs for layout were hot.
[color=blue]
> Are you saying keep using CSS because
> browsers will eventually make use of it?[/color]

They already do. I make sites with it, fully CSS for layout, and I save
a lot of time compared to as it used to be.
[color=blue]
> If so, sure. I'm not about to argue
> with you. CSS saves me more time then font tags and tables ever did. :)[/color]

Ehm.. wasn't it clear that I was pro CSS?

--
Kris
kristiaan@xs4al l.netherlands (nl)

[Kris]

Re: Workable,, not the same (Re: Anyone still hand-coding web sites?)

In article <MPG.19ea793570 6c406698b4e1@ne ws.odyssey.net> ,
Stan Brown <the_stan_brown @fastmail.fm> wrote:
[color=blue]
> So _much_ effort is wasted trying to get pages to look the same in
> different browsers, when the only one who will know is the author.
> With the possible exception of people who review Web sites for a
> living, no user who is trying to get information cares what the site
> looks like in a browser other than the one she happens to be using -
> - provided the browser she's using can display the information.[/color]

And provided that the user is a she, which is often not the case. :)

--
Kris
kristiaan@xs4al l.netherlands (nl)

[Barbara de Zoete]

Re: Anyone still hand-coding web sites?

d2003xx schreef:[color=blue]
> Barbara de Zoete wrote:
>[color=green]
>>d2003xx schreef:
>>[color=darkred]
>>>Kris schreef:[/color]
>>[color=darkred]
>>>>d2003xx schreef:[/color]
>>[color=darkred]
>>>>>Hmmmm... I code php to produce html pages.... (not embedding php in
>>>>>html) I started to use this because the layout of html pages becomes
>>>>>too complex (hundreds of tables in one page). And it can improve
>>>>>maintainab lity a lot.
>>>>
>>>>Replace as much of the presentational HTML by CSS and you will be
>>>>cheering. PHP/CSS/Structural HTML is a very good combination.
>>>
>>>I tried, but CSS is badly supported. :([/color]
>>
>>Now this is news to me. Why do you think "CSS is badly supported" ?[/color]
>
> For example, "display: block" and "position: absolute"... Try to use
> them to control the layout on different browsers and you will see.[/color]

All of my pages have a two colomn layout (except for one, which has
three colomns). To get the colomns in place I use position:absolu te;
(and display:block; if necessary, which is rare).
As far as I can see, using various browsers (IE6, OP7.11, NS7.1, Moz1.4,
Firebird0.6, Avant8.02, Konqueror) none of the newer browsers have any
problem with that what so ever.

So what are the problems you encountered?

--

Barbara

http://home.wanadoo.nl/b.de.zoete/html/weblog.html *Dagboek*
http://home.wanadoo.nl/b.de.zoete/html/vliegen.html *Zweefvliegen*?