On Monday 16 July 2001 20:56, Roland M�sl wrote:
| "Robert E. Boughner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
| [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
|
| > Vadim Plessky wrote:
| > > It depends on browser and developers's wizdom.
| > > MS IE will assume 8px when page offer "margin-bottom: 8"
| > > It's real life: people forget to put measurement units in CSS
| definitions.
|
| > Then maybe they should run their CSS thorough a validator to check that
| they've
| > done everything correctly.
|
well, as my name was in some way affected in this thread, and there are some
quotes of my mail, I need to clarify:
a) measurement units (1cm, 1mm, 1pt, 1px) are *good to have* in CSS.
One exceptions: 0. It's really stupid to specify 0px or 0cm. 0 is just
*zero*, that's it.
b) unfortunately, all browsers just *ignore* (Mozilla/NS) or
*misinterpret*/*adjust* (MS IE) missing definitions.
If MS IE and NS were *bombing* user saying "hey! this page has error in CSS
definition, line 15,17, 25, etc." I guess all webmasters corrected such erros
in 10 minutes. Othrwise you could take risk of loosing visitors.
So, I think that Netscape / Mozilla community should recognize that they are
guilty in such situation as well.
If MS is guilty? Yes, for sure. But NS is guilty as well.
c) most of W3C specifications are hard to understand and not easy to read.
And W3C consortium doesn't carry about it.
So, I partially understand MS ignoring some parts of those standards...
No, I do not forgive MS for bringing crappy browsers, hanging on more than 8
windows opened on my Win98 with 128MB...
But, hey, MS is commercial company, not voluntary project, they need to earn
some money for living.
Let me give example illistrating c).
Some time ago (beginning of 80-s) US military system wanted one, unified
language which could cover most of it needs and (supposely) solve most of
their problems.
And they made Ada. Hundreds of people, some *industry experts*, US gov , etc.
contributed to it. And what you had? 500+ pages of specification. Cost of US
$1 mil. to prepare one Ada engineer.
At the same time, Niclaus Wirth made Modula-2, with language description on
around 30 pages. (Oberon was on 19 pages)
Language, doing the same things, but 10 times smaller, created by one person
and which can be studied in 1 or 2 days.
See the difference?
It seems to me that the same happens with W3C.
It's effort to have one standard satisfying *everybuddy* is worth
considering, but reality is that W3C are far away from being real-world
standard.
And complexety of those specs is just one of the reasons.
W3C's DOM0/DOM1/DOM2/DOM3 ...DOM4 next year? - became instant series of
continous updates.
And *complete DOM-all specification* resembles me Ada language :-((
I vote for standards, I just wnat to be distinctive what is standard, and
what I accept as standard, and what is not.
Hope this clarifies my position.
| I have per page about 20 <DIV with top left width height
|
| px are 2 byte more times 20 DIV time 4 times used.
|
| I will not waste 160 byte bandwith per page,
| only because some people can not think on a usefull default.
|
| 160 bytes per page are at 200.000 page views per month
| 32 MB wasted bandwith
Roland,
you should define one CSS class ("mc", for My Class), and than specify <DIV
class=mc> in each DIV.
So, there will be no waste of 80 times x2bytes in this case.
CSS was designed exactly for this.
|
| So no chance that I will use this px.
| The big majority has decided.
| The 0.25% minority has to obey
|
| --
| Roland M�sl
| http://pege.org Clear targets for a confused civilization
| http://BeingFound.com Web Design starts at the search engine
--
Vadim Plessky
http://kde2.newmail.ru (English)
33 Window Decorations and 6 Widget Styles for KDE
http://kde2.newmail.ru/kde_themes.html
Do you have Arial font installed? Just test it!
http://kde2.newmail.ru/font_test_arial.html
