At 08:55 AM 1/18/2009 -0500, Adam Ducker wrote: >So I guess my question is what exactly is it that you're doing that you >need a zillion "fixes" and "hacks" to make it work? I haven't had to do >that kind of development in years.
Well, that's what I meant -- *I* don't need all sorts of fixes/hacks in order to do what I want, but since I've been on this list (since last July) that seems to be all I see amongst those who do choose to create layouts (etc.) purely with CSS. I see one post after another go by with one problem or another, and quite often the answer will be that "Yeah, IE is funny that way, and you have to do this and this and this and this in order to get it to work" (or whatever similar solution might be for the question at hand). And yet, there's often been times when I looked at the person's problem and thought, gee, I could resolve that issue EASILY, if only I *wasn't* trying to do it exclusively with CSS. >Don't let this list confuse you. People have innumerable CSS problems >because we are all learning and growing in CSS, not because CSS is >critically flawed in the ways you have come to believe. Well, perhaps "flawed" is the wrong word (although I don't believe I used that word, specifically). I guess what I mean, though, is that CSS is still very, very young (it's hardly hit puberty, let alone young adulthood!), and surely, surely everyone here can see and acknowledge that there's still all sorts of things that need to be worked out and really, genuinely standardized. In a way, how all the various browsers seem to be going off on their own, each creating their own "standards", reminds me of the competition between HD and BluRay -- sooner or later someone is going to come out on top, and all the other browsers will follow. I mean, geez, if they don't then the need for all these ridiculous hacks and fixes will never, ever end! And that would be stupid, utterly ridulous and ultimately self-defeating, for *all* browser manufacturers and *all* web designers. But that's basically where things are at now -- a world of hacks and fixes. I'd like to think, though, that hopefully within the next decade things will indeed become better in that regard. In the meantime, I can't understand why anyone would take issue with something that *does* work (i.e. table layouts), that works in the long, long, long term, without any problems at all. >It is not only possible to develop 100% hack free CSS based web pages, >but it is possible to do so quickly and efficiently. The browser wars >are over and the good side won. Now 99% of non vision-impaired web >users have browsers that are IE 6 or newer (80% are much newer than IE >6) and this means the days of hacking and witching our HTML into cross >browser compatible pages are over. Interesting. So the thousands of posts that I've seen go by on this list, all of which require a solution that involves "hacking and witching", are just my imagination? >I challenge you to throw away the tables. If you have an issue between >browsers you can't clear up then bring it to the list and we'll all talk >about it. Developing for the web without tables should not be the >stressful situation you outline above. If it is then you're doing it wrong. And I challenge you to not condescend, and not tell me how to create my web sites. :) Look, what you're expressing in that last paragraph is *exactly* the sentiment that I was referring to in my first, initial post in this thread: that those out there who advocate CSS layouts can be very intimidating for those of us who continue to use tables, and can leave us feeling extremely apprehensive in posting a question, any question, to the list (for fear that we be admonished for using tables for layout). I don't know about anyone else here, but I think the conclusion that I've come to through this whole thread is that, hey, it's up to you! I absolutely, truly and whole-heartedly applaud all of you out there that are making sincere efforts at designing web pages purely with CSS layouts (etc.), if only because it's because of *YOU* people that things will, indeed get better and better over time. But with things still being as "buggy" as they are -- and with only hope for the future that things will get better -- until things do get better then I see no reason why people should be condescended to for choosing to stick with tables for layouts, for what's tried-and-true, for what *works*, long-term and quite possibly forever. Hey, if I walk out my door tomorrow and get hit by a bus and die, at least I'll be able to "rest in peace", knowing that my web sites will live on after me -- even if the manner in which they're made is "archaic", at least they won't completely fall apart and then eventually disappear from the web forever, the next time the next version of browsers hits the airwaves. In the end, I think Andrew said it best, and most succinctly... At 07:11 AM 1/18/2009 -0500, Andrew Badera wrote: >One's history, target platform(s) and audience(s) certainly dictate your >perspective on this. There you go: it's up to me, and it's up to you, whatever we each feel works best and is most appropriate for ourselves. I think it's *fantastic* that so many of you our there are working to make CSS a better and better thing, but it's just as fantastic that some of us out there choose to stick with what does, in fact, really and truly work in the long haul, bug-free and quite possibly lasting "forever". Advancing the world of web design is just as important as saving worthwhile sites for posterity -- and if I'm to be admonished for choosing to do the latter (until things get better/more standardized), well, whatever person it is that has the problem with me is, in fact, the one who has the problem. Ron ;) ______________________________________________________________________ css-discuss [cs...@lists.css-discuss.org] http://www.css-discuss.org/mailman/listinfo/css-d List wiki/FAQ -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/ List policies -- http://css-discuss.org/policies.html Supported by evolt.org -- http://www.evolt.org/help_support_evolt/
