General fitness, health and nutrition · Public discussion

OT - CSS with websites (was The perfect camera carry system? )

Started by Michael S · · Last activity · 5 posts · 395 views

← Back to General fitness, health and nutrition

Thread details

What we know about this thread

Original section
General fitness, health and nutrition
Published
21 July 2004
Last activity
21 July 2004
Original author
Michael S
Posts
5
Discussion status
Public discussion
Total views
395
Views / 30 days
0

The navigation and discussion metadata provide context. Posts remain in their original chronological order.

Showing posts 1–5 of 5
Posts remain in their original chronological order.

Text size
  1. Original post
    Michael S
    Archived post
    #1

    Sorry to dig this up, but I was trawling old threads and I found the
    discussion about web design and CSS etc...

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    I'm new to all this CSS layout stuff, so I'll let Steve explain!


    :-)

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    But basically, I thought it was meant to speed up loading times,


    and

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    enable easy site-wide changes. Also, I thought that it was meant


    to

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    be more viewable than table-layouts, such as in speech browsers.

    Quoted message said:

    Well I'm not bothered about speech browsers, I just want


    straightforward

    Quoted message said:

    layouts for image thumbnails. Not the sort of thing I'd need to


    change

    Quoted message said:

    later. Site-wide changes are great for style features like


    backgrounds,

    Quoted message said:

    fonts, colours etc, but I don't see much need for site wide
    repositioning of objects on pages. Surely that could lead to a hell


    of

    Quoted message said:

    a mess if all your pages aren't laid out the same way?

    As well as speeding up download times, enabling easy site-wide
    changes, compatability with speech browsers etc., the point of CSS is
    that many formatting tags that have commonly been used in the past
    (often in conjunction with tables) are being deprecated. The World
    Wide Web Consortium (W3C) decided to deprecate formatting tags. That
    means those tags are marked for deletion in future versions of HTML
    and XHTML, thus meeting their goal of separating presentation from
    structure. In a 'pure' CSS environment, basic HTML tags define
    paragraphs, lists, headers, etc. and CSS definitions tell the browser
    how to display them.

    Although deprecated tags will still be read by browsers for some time,
    there will come a point when the old (current?) style of html writing
    is just no good. So you might as well start learning how to implement
    CSS now, rather than wait til the last minute. As well as the
    'official' reasons to use CSS, it really does make site management a
    heck of a lot easier.

    It's also worth noting that *all* tags will have to be 'closed'.
    Currently the IMG tag (for example) isn't closed - in future it will
    need to be, which means putting a space then a / before the > at the
    end of the tag.

    Sorry for going on a bit, but I thought it might be of interest to
    those who have walking websites etc. For tutorials, there are
    hundreds of good sites on the www.

    Regards,

    Michael S

    Report
  2. Steve R.
    Archived post
    #2

    Michael S wrote in message ...

    Quoted message said:

    Although deprecated tags will still be read by browsers for some time,
    there will come a point when the old (current?) style of html writing
    is just no good.

    Don't worry about it ... Bill Gates knows there's millions, nay trillions,
    of websites out there written in good ol' simple HTML and he's not going to
    make any of his future creations not to be able to read basic HTLM with
    'font' and other simple to create tags.

    So to all those people still using it, just carry on :~)

    Some of the CSS sites I've looked at recently have horrendously bloated and
    unfathomable code and still don't work properly in the *most popular*
    browsers.

    Report
  3. Peter Clinch
    Archived post
    #3
    Steve R. said:

    Don't worry about it ... Bill Gates knows there's millions, nay trillions,
    of websites out there written in good ol' simple HTML and he's not going to
    make any of his future creations not to be able to read basic HTLM with
    'font' and other simple to create tags.

    Shurely: "he's not going to make any of his future creations comply with
    mere agreed standards when he's better off using monopoly power to
    encourage broken code that doesn't comply with them (and other,
    otherwise superior browsers) either".

    ;-/

    Quoted message said:

    So to all those people still using it, just carry on :~)

    But do try to test on more than Internet Exploder. I don't have a copy
    on this Sun, plenty of other machines out there not running it too.

    Pete.
    --
    Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
    Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
    Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
    net [email hidden] http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

    Report
  4. Paul Saunders
    Archived post
    #4
    Michael S said:

    The World
    Wide Web Consortium (W3C) decided to deprecate formatting tags. That
    means those tags are marked for deletion in future versions of HTML
    and XHTML, thus meeting their goal of separating presentation from
    structure.

    As opposed to the original concept of compatability?

    A helluva lot of already written html code is never going to be updated,
    and shouldn't have to be IMO. There'll always be a need for browsers to
    read old code. What's the point in agreeing on a cross platform
    compatible format in the first place if you're going to change it later?
    Kind of misses the whole point.

    Paul
    --
    http://www.wilderness-wales.co.uk
    http://www.wildwales.fsnet.co.uk
    http://www.photosig.com/go/users/userphotos?id=118749

    Report
  5. Peter Clinch
    Archived post
    #5
    Paul Saunders said:

    A helluva lot of already written html code is never going to be updated,
    and shouldn't have to be IMO. There'll always be a need for browsers to
    read old code. What's the point in agreeing on a cross platform
    compatible format in the first place if you're going to change it later?

    The original spec for HTML more sort of happened than was really
    /agreed/, at least outside of CERN and Berners-Lee's immediate circle,
    and there were various aspects that people hadn't managed to foresee
    when the first browsers were written. Because of the very rapid
    evolution and amazing success of the WWW various points of design of the
    original have revealed themselves to be rather flawed in many respects.
    What's the point of trying to improve something if you deliberately
    tie yourself down to past mistakes?

    Since I recoded my own site with CSS it got a /lot/ easier to maintain
    and add to.

    Quoted message said:

    Kind of misses the whole point.

    Depends what you think the "whole point" is. I'd say it's optimum
    presentation of information. CSS lets you do that far more readily than
    a lot of hardcoding, and if the information is worth keeping then it's
    worth hacking out hardcoded tags (often quite easy with streaming
    editors and/or a working knowledge of perl or similar). A browser that
    doesn't invoke them shouldn't break, it'll just render your big, pink
    text as normal text. The information content would still be there.

    Pete.
    --
    Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
    Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
    Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
    net [email hidden] http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

    Report

Keep exploring

Browse the sectionGeneral fitness, health and nutrition Return to CyclingForumsStart at the home page Search discussionsFind another thread

Active in the last 60 minutes

Active in this thread

0 users · 0 guests ·0 bots ·0 total

No signed-in users are active right now.

No known search crawlers active right now.