Style Sheet Methods

[Hostile17]

[I previously asked this on comp.infosystem s.www.authoring.stylesheets
but I didn't get much response so I thought I'd try here for
thoroughness]

I'd like to get people's opinions on methods of adding CSS to your
documents.

Let's assume that everyone uses remote style sheets, which make
websites much easier to maintain.

Let's also assume that everyone has problems with Netscape 4, which I
don't think is unfair.

So this leaves us with the following approaches:

1) A single remote stylesheet via a LINK tag, marked MEDIA="ALL" to
hide it from Netscape 4.

2) Two or more remote stylesheets via LINK tags, one marked
MEDIA="ALL" to hide it from Netscape 4, the other(s) not.

3) A single remote stylesheet via a LINK tag, with some of the content
hidden from Netscape 4 with Netscape-bug-exploiting comments.

4) A single remote stylesheet via a LINK tag, plus a STYLE section
containing one or more @IMPORT statements.

5) A single remote stylesheet via a LINK tag, the remote stylesheet
containing one or more @IMPORT statements.

Have I covered all the possibilities?

What I'd like to know is which approach you use, and why?

[Jukka K. Korpela]

Re: Style Sheet Methods

hosti1e17@yahoo .com (Hostile17) wrote:
[color=blue]
> [I previously asked this on
> comp.infosystem s.www.authoring.stylesheets but I didn't get much
> response so I thought I'd try here for thoroughness][/color]

That's very foolish. You don't even identify the original post, and you
seem to repost the original question. If you didn't learn anything from
the responses you got in the right group, what could it possibly
benefit to retry in a wrong group?

Please do not switch to an RFC 1036 conformant From field
before you get a clue.

--
Yucca, http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/
Pages about Web authoring: http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/www.html

[Stephen Poley]

Re: Style Sheet Methods

On 29 Feb 2004 21:51:46 -0800, hosti1e17@yahoo .com (Hostile17) wrote:
[color=blue]
>[I previously asked this on comp.infosystem s.www.authoring.stylesheets
>but I didn't get much response so I thought I'd try here for
>thoroughness][/color]

I think you didn't get many responses because most people don't consider
it terribly important which of the listed methods one uses.

--
Stephen Poley

http://www.xs4all.nl/~sbpoley/webmatters/

[Mark Parnell]

Re: Style Sheet Methods

On Mon, 1 Mar 2004 07:57:53 +0000 (UTC), "Jukka K. Korpela"
<jkorpela@cs.tu t.fi> declared in comp.infosystem s.www.authoring.html:
[color=blue]
> hosti1e17@yahoo .com (Hostile17) wrote:[/color]

[color=blue]
> Please do not switch to an RFC 1036 conformant From field
> before you get a clue.[/color]

In what way does the OP's From field (quoted above for reference) not
comply with the RFC?

Section 2.1.1 (the From field) states that

<quote>
Thus, the three permissible forms are:

From: mark@cbosgd.ATT .COM
From: mark@cbosgd.ATT .COM (Mark Horton)
From: Mark Horton <mark@cbosgd.AT T.COM>
</quote>

AFAICS, the OP's From field follows the 2nd form.

--
Mark Parnell

http://www.clarkecomputers.com.au

[Andy Dingley]

Re: Style Sheet Methods

On 29 Feb 2004 21:51:46 -0800, hosti1e17@yahoo .com (Hostile17) wrote:
[color=blue]
>Let's also assume that everyone has problems with Netscape 4, which I
>don't think is unfair.[/color]

Life is unfair. If we all ignore NS4, then it'll go away.

[Neal]

Re: Style Sheet Methods

On Tue, 2 Mar 2004 10:28:02 +1100, Mark Parnell
<webmaster@clar kecomputers.com .au> wrote:
[color=blue]
> In what way does the OP's From field (quoted above for reference) not
> comply with the RFC?
>
> Section 2.1.1 (the From field) states that
>
> <quote>
> Thus, the three permissible forms are:
>
> From: mark@cbosgd.ATT .COM
> From: mark@cbosgd.ATT .COM (Mark Horton)
> From: Mark Horton <mark@cbosgd.AT T.COM>
> </quote>
>
> AFAICS, the OP's From field follows the 2nd form.
>[/color]

I see From: hosti1e17@yahoo .com (Hostile17) as well. Would seem to me
that's as valid a name as any.

[Jukka K. Korpela]

Re: Style Sheet Methods

Mark Parnell <webmaster@clar kecomputers.com .au> wrote:
[color=blue]
> In what way does the OP's From field (quoted above for reference) not
> comply with the RFC?[/color]

Try asking in a suitable news.* group, but first check that you have
understood the words "the full name of the person".

--
Yucca, http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/
Pages about Web authoring: http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/www.html

[Mark Parnell]

Re: Style Sheet Methods

On Tue, 2 Mar 2004 06:00:05 +0000 (UTC), "Jukka K. Korpela"
<jkorpela@cs.tu t.fi> declared in comp.infosystem s.www.authoring.html:
[color=blue]
> Try asking in a suitable news.* group, but first check that you have
> understood the words "the full name of the person".[/color]

The full name is optional, although if it is included I suppose it
should be their actual name.

But if you are going to be that pedantic, how do you define "full name"?
Does that mean that mine doesn't comply either, since I don't include my
middle name? Or yours, since you only include your middle initial? And
how do you know the OP isn't truly called Hostile17? (OK, I'm getting a
bit silly now).

On a more serious note though, is there actually an official definition
of "full name" in this context? (That _is_ a serious question - I did
look but couldn't find one).

--
Mark Parnell

http://www.clarkecomputers.com.au

[Neal]

Re: Style Sheet Methods

On Tue, 2 Mar 2004 06:00:05 +0000 (UTC), Jukka K. Korpela
<jkorpela@cs.tu t.fi> wrote:
[color=blue]
> Mark Parnell <webmaster@clar kecomputers.com .au> wrote:
>[color=green]
>> In what way does the OP's From field (quoted above for reference) not
>> comply with the RFC?[/color]
>
> Try asking in a suitable news.* group,[/color]

You have entered it into discussion here.
[color=blue]
> but first check that you have
> understood the words "the full name of the person".
>[/color]

Prove that "Hostile17" is not his full name.

Why have you never gotten on my case about this? Or Brian? Or half a dozen
others? Why is this person made to feel foolish and silly for having
disobeyed this fringe little RFC I've never even friggin' heard of, while
the rest of us are posting merrily along, unaware of the grave disservice
we're doing to the Usenet?

You're a very smart guy, and a fantastic asset to this forum. But that was
the most pedantic and irrelevent bitch-slap I've ever seen.

[Jukka K. Korpela]

Re: Style Sheet Methods

Neal <neal413@spamrc n.com> wrote:
[color=blue]
> Why is this person made to feel foolish and silly for having
> disobeyed this fringe little RFC I've never even friggin' heard of,[/color]

"This person" was foolish enough to try to re-raise discussion in a
wrong group because he did not get the answers he wanted in the right
group.

I was just asking him to keep using a wrong From field as a useful
indicator. There was an additional hint embedded, and if you didn't get
it, just relax.

--
Yucca, http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/
Pages about Web authoring: http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/www.html

[Hostile17]

Re: Style Sheet Methods

I just feel I had to post at least once and say how genuinely shocked
I was by the rudeness of the response from "Yucca". I just don't get
it.
[color=blue]
>"This person" was foolish enough to try to re-raise discussion in a
>wrong group because he did not get the answers he wanted in the right
>group.[/color]

I didn't expect any particular answers, I genuinely wanted to know --
and I'm not some clueless newbie posting to twenty different groups
asking something in the FAQ and top-posting.

It seems, frankly, that it's a boring question: nobody wanted
particularly to answer it in CIWAS, nobody particularly cares about it
here either. OK, so it's boring. But it's not completely inappropriate
to ask it in an HTML group, surely? It's a question that interests me,
but it doesn't interest you. You couldn't just ignore it?

And yes, I use a pseudonym. I'm not the only one. If I'd chosen a
pseudonym that sounded like a real name, you wouldn't even have known,
but I use one that at least makes it obvious it's *not* a real name.
Call me "John Smith" if that helps.

I remain, as I said before, simply baffled by the rudeness.