James A. Treacy: > For a long time, that was all that was available.
Fortunately, it is now a long time later :-) > So, you are advocating we switch to using CSS. If so, say it instead > of us having circular arguments. "Switch"? No, I think that to achieve the visual effects that some people try to do by hacking HTML code which isn't correct, we *add* CSS to do that. CSS is in *addition* to HTML, it is not a substitute. HTML tells *what* the document is, CSS how it *looks*. > What are the drawbacks to using CSS? Do all browsers support it? The main drawback is that it, while being invented back in 1994, still isn't supported correctly. From the popular browsers, it is notably Netscape 4 that has serious problems with CSS (and older versions lack support altogether). However, a carefully designed site will look good even when displayed in a non-CSS browser, although the visual effects will not appear (things such as author selected fonts, colours, alignment, etc.) When I write pages with CSS, I generally leave in stuff like <div align=center> and so to aid older browsers. So we can more or less do with what we have now (but remove things that are depreciated, like <i>, <b>, <font> etc), and just add CSSes. We can leave the tables for layout, colour specification in <body>, etc. to cater for older browsers, no problem. (And then, in a few years, when "all" browsers support CSS, we can skip all the old crud and do with only CSS (at least in a dream-scenario)). -- \\// peter - http://www.softwolves.pp.se/ Statement concerning unsolicited e-mail according to Swedish law: http://www.softwolves.pp.se/peter/reklampost.html
