stango wrote:
If you looked at my web site first glance you would not be able to tell
what I used to create it and most people will not care. Because I know
how to write code I decided that I do not need CSS to create it.
Feasible, yes. Efficient, not always.
The original genius of HTML was the separation of content from style
(formatting), and CSS is a way of doing that efficiently. Instead of
writing things like <font color="993366"><font size=+3>...</font></font>
over and over again, you can put that definition in the style sheet and
just code <font style="whatever">...</style>. Then if you decide to
change the style later, you can make one change to the CSS instead of
tracking down hundreds of occurrences of <font color="993366"><font
size=+3> in every single page on your site.
I do much the same thing in my MS Word documents -- I have a client who
likes Calibri much better than Times New Roman, so whenever I work for
him, I simply redefine "Normal" in his doc and everything works
perfectly. If I copy a bit of text from elsewhere, Word automatically
puts it in Calibri without being told, because that's the style definition.
As far as HTML5 goes, most of the comments I have seen have been about
how do disable it on web site folks have been visiting.
That, too, will pass. It happens with every new technology. When was the
last time you heard someone complain about cars being harder to manage
than horses?
To steer back to the original point of the discussion, Composer is
far easier to use and create WYSIWYG HTML pages than Blue Griffon
is.
Fair enough. Some readers will have similar tastes, others will not.
It's the nature of the real world.
--
War doesn't determine who's right, just who's left.
--
Paul B. Gallagher
_______________________________________________
support-seamonkey mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey
