HTML Tags, Are they Passe and all should be CSS?

[Raila]

I was just informed by another user that the "font" tag is considered deprecated by most of the users at this forum, or at least himself


My question was, how can something that can almost entirely be counted upon to work on a nearly consistant basis be considered Ill form to use, versus going to CSS and learning an entire new language?

Does not CSS still not show correctly for all of it's capabilities in all browsers? I know of several different options that will not function fully in IE along with nearly no knowledge of CSS yet, and most users seem to use IE. I do myself, after having tried several different ones, and finding that others seem to suck, as much as I dislike IE, it has good functionality for the most.

Please, discuss this here, as I would like to see all the different sides.
This is definately not a flame thread, or to point fingers, simply to see what the general consensus is about coding, even though CSS seems a little easier, I dont know if it offers ALL the functions of regular old HTML.

[M. Johansson]

Judging from your question, I don't think you fully understand what CSS is and how it works. CSS is a complement to HTML, not a replacement.

The key idea is to separate the layout from the content, and let HTML say "this is the content, that is a header, that is a paragraph" while the CSS says "this is what the content should look like, this is what a header should look like, this is what a paragraph should look like".

You should probably read up some more on this. Sitepoints CSS book is probably a very good bet for you.

[Raila]

Judging from your question, I don't think you fully understand what CSS is and how it works. CSS is a complement to HTML, not a replacement.

The key idea is to separate the layout from the content, and let HTML say "this is the content, that is a header, that is a paragraph" while the CSS says "this is what the content should look like, this is what a header should look like, this is what a paragraph should look like".

You should probably read up some more on this. Sitepoints CSS book is probably a very good bet for you.

Oh, don't get me wrong. I think CSS has some Very Good capabilities, and additions that you can do with it. Though I do not see how using something that cannot be consitistantly seen under all different situations could be something that would replace a tried and true series of commands.

Perhaps I worded it wrong, and made it out as if it should only BE CSS, and I have seen discussion to CSS Only sites, and perhaps that is what colored my question, as I know you can do a lot with CSS, just perhaps not everything if they WERE consistantly used together, not looking to replace entirely HTML with the CSS, as most of the different sites I had seen seem to suggest.

I understand they are supposed to compliment each other, not have one completely overshadow the other, though I don't know that everyone does. Maybe this will help clear some of the confusion altogether up, and see how people do generally view CSS?

[platinum]

CSS ->

the font tag is indeed depreciated, check out www.w3c.org for the latest XHTML specifications.

As mattias pointed out, CSS is not a replacement for HTML, it is a tool to assist in seperating "design" elements from your "information structure".

You can apply styles to any HTML tag you wish, so instead of

<font size="3" color="#FF0000">This is my Header</font>
<br /><br />

<p><font size="2" color="#000000">
Some content Text
</font></p>

<font size="3" color="#FF0000">This is another Header</font>
<br /><br />

<p><font size="2" color="#000000">
Some more content Text
</font></p>

can be replaced by:

<h1>This is my Header</h1>

<p>
Some content Text
</p>

<h1>This is another Header</h1>

<p>
Some more content Text
</p>

Looks a lot cleaner doesn't it? You can simply use your CSS stylesheet to make it look exactly the same as the example above. This will change it over your entire site as well, which means when you come to update, and you want your text to be green instead of red, you just have to make a single change in your style sheet rather than update every single page, and to further that example, with advanced CSS layouts, you can totally change the design of your site without even touching a HTML tag using only CSS.

CSS also allows for you to define a seperate CSS stylesheet for "printing" without having to even touch your HTML page, or one for mobile devices.

It's really cool - so just use it

[M. Johansson]

I have seen discussion to CSS Only sites,

There is no such thing as a CSS only site.

[vgarcia]

Read this for a very good argument AGAINST font tags. There are many others, like the amount of clutter that it puts in your code, but the one I linked to is one of the most convincing.

[DaDaHost]

CSS is nothing without HTML (or XHTML, or XML). HTML is a house and CSS is the painting on the walls.

Jamie

[xhtmlcoder]

Style and Structure, bricks and mortar use them wisely.

[Raila]

Interesting.
So the sites that claim to be strict CSS still have to use HTML to accomplish what they want, simply because one cannot exist without the other?

[platinum]

Interesting.
So the sites that claim to be strict CSS still have to use HTML to accomplish what they want, simply because one cannot exist without the other?

Yes, and one is not meant to exist without the other...

[vgarcia]

Yes, and one is not meant to exist without the other...

HTML can exist without CSS, but it will be boring. CSS can exist without HTML, but it will only work in TopStyle .

[Raila]

HTML can exist without CSS, but it will be boring. CSS can exist without HTML, but it will only work in TopStyle .

I don't know about HTML being "boring" without CSS, as many, even myself, have created beautiful sites with only HTML, but the ease of control offered by CSS seems to be a huge caveat for using it. I was just worried that there were so many things that would not operate as they should with CSS, so that had been my main concern with using it. Though with simple commands, and not things like Navigation sheets to depth beyond the simple beginning, I believe most all show in all browsers, correct?

Next question. For something as simple as font commands, do you have to attach a style sheet to the page for that as well, or does that only go into effect with more complicated command structures?

[John Colby]

I don't know about HTML being "boring" without CSS, as many, even myself, have created beautiful sites with only HTML, but the ease of control offered by CSS seems to be a huge caveat for using it.

I don't know about any caveat, which is a warning, so what I think you may mean is that it is a benefit.

Just a question - have you actually read the acceptable tag list of HTML? And I mean not including the deprecated tags. If you try to make your code futureproof and use the latest standards you will find that all the presentational markup havs been deprecated. See the specs at http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml11/ for XHTML 1.1 that's been round for more than two years. Quite honestly I think that the precept you are trying to apply is so inaccurate that you have led into posting a false poll.

Let's just restate a previous posting

I don't think you fully understand what CSS is and how it works.

and let's just reiterate three points

• (X)HTML stuctures the content of a web page
• CSS affects the presentation of a web page - in screen, speech or other output format.
• CSS cannot produce a webpage alone. (X)HTML can.

The best way round this is to try to produce a page or two to the standards published in the XHTML reference given above and use the CSS reference from W3C (remembering that the illustrations use capitalised tags and not, as is demanded by XHTML, that all tags should be in lower case). The website for the CSS spec is http://www.w3.org/TR/CSS2/ and there are downloadable files.

And when doing this the trick is to remember the call to arms of "Complete separation of content from presentation" which not only works, but produces code that is more economical, more controllable, and certainly more accessible to people who do not or cannot access websites using a conventional PC. And I do not mean here only the disabled, but those on mobile devices, phones, Web TV and any sort of device such as speech devices and braille. And speech is not only limited to those with sight problems. BMW has produced a car that is claimed to be the first car with in-car internet access that is associated with GPS navigation. Speech would be much safer than looking at a screen whilst driving.

</rant>

[ComputerBob]

Raila,
As one who just finished redesigning my entire 2xx-page site from HTML only to XHTML/CSS, I can vouch for every benefit of the latter that everyone else here has stated. It took me 8 weeks of 8-17 hour days, but it will be well worth it in the long run.

As others have stated, it's really kind of pointless to try to continue this discussion until you have a better understanding of the basic concepts of using HTML along with CSS. I HIGHLY recommend that you read Kevin Yank's excellent article, CSS Is Easy!

[Raila]

Lol, someone needs decaf
Just kidding.
Seriously, I have seen pages claiming to have been done entirely in CSS, though I did not bookmark them. Having done most of the coding I have done for pages off and on with Dreamweaver MX<now> and notepad, I had been using what had been known as standards for a while. Though, because I was just getting back into writing pages again recently, I had been going through a life outside online and things had changed. Drastically, apparently.

I used caveat in the manner of something that is not perfected, though could be a huge boon, provided that it is used in the manner necessary. As far as the site design, it is being designed for a very particular type of person, and the possibility of it being accessed through anything other than computers online is remote. The word caveat itself is NOT used as a warning. Caveat emptor means Buyer Beware. It is not the meaning of the word alone.

Also, As I stated, this was to ask question, and to learn. Not to mislead. Perhaps I was mislead in the informaiton I had looked at, and at this point, That has been cleared up. I wrote this thread TO learn, and to ask questions. Here is the quote the last sentence of mo original post ended with.

This is definately not a flame thread, or to point fingers, simply to see what the general consensus is about coding, even though CSS seems a little easier, I dont know if it offers ALL the functions of regular old HTML.

I believe I stated in the very beginning this was to ask question. Not be flamed, Though, perhaps I did not gather the tone of your post, and misunderstood something again with the /rant at the end of it.

To answer your question, no, I had not seen that particular page, though I have been looking more and more into different changes that have been done to the "standards", which seem to change as the mood hits. I don't understand how something can be considered a standard, and then be changed all the time


And Thank you Bob.
I will check that out as well. Learning things has always been something I loved, and being able to do things with what I learn is always amazing.

Though, I don't see how it could be pointless. Perhaps the tone of the thread just changed. Though I suppose that I am now viewed as a fool, and will just post asinine questions and queries from this point, until I "learn" what it is that I have obviously been deprived of without knowing I had been. Thank you, everyone, for pointing that out to me.

[vgarcia]

To answer your question, no, I had not seen that particular page, though I have been looking more and more into different changes that have been done to the "standards", which seem to change as the mood hits. I don't understand how something can be considered a standard, and then be changed all the time

Standards never change; they merely get updated. You're welcome to use any standard as long as you can code to it correctly. Examples:
CSS - Standardized way back in 1996.
HTML 4.01 - 1997.
CSS2 - 1998.
XHTML 1.0 - 1999.

These standards have been the same for 4 years or more. The only thing that has changed is support in Web browsers for said standards, and that only gets better over time.

[ComputerBob]

And Thank you Bob.
I will check that out as well. Learning things has always been something I loved, and being able to do things with what I learn is always amazing.

Though, I don't see how it could be pointless...

I fully undertand that, and I'm not trying to put you down, but I sincerely believe that you will see how it actually is pointless, once you gain a basic understanding of the issues that you're trying to discuss, and dispel a few basic misunderstandings of them that you currently have. And, somewhat ironically, at that point, it will no longer be pointless for you to try to discuss them.

It's kind of like if someone posted a poll, asking if people prefer to use operating systems or application software, or both. Once you understand the basic relationship between the two, then you know that the question itself is sort of pointless.