SitePoint Sponsor

User Tag List

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 26 to 28 of 28
  1. #26
    SitePoint Addict will_'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Asheville, NC
    Posts
    206
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    It's also true he has posted similar comments in other threads, being so bold as to generalize the CSS forum as being "full of you guys endlessly..."

  2. #27
    SitePoint Wizard DougBTX's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    Bath, UK
    Posts
    2,498
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by normaldude
    No, I actually never created this "thread". What happened was someone posted a thread about their website not validating with the W3C validator. And I posted some responses on THAT thread.[/b]
    In which case I take that comment back.

    I still think that you are wrong, but that is less of an attack than calling you a troll

    This post is basically what I would say to you: http://www.sitepoint.com/forums/show...3&postcount=13 (not written by me)

    That addresses what I percieve to be your problems with CSS. I don't care about NN3. I just don't. Even when you take in the "who uses what percentage of broswers" arguments, I don't think supporting NN3 is a valid argument. NN4 possibly, but unless specifically asked to support it, I just won't. I can save so much time coding in CSS that I would just do it in CSS without second thought. I realise that many people feel that they can code fater in tables than in CSS, and I believe that to be true. In their case. But not in mine, so I will use CSS.

    It may be a simple fact that not everyone who calls themselves a web designer is capable of of thinking in CSS, but i doubt that very much. The first CSS site I went to, they said "we use CSS" and I thought "bull****, you can't so that in CSS, this is a tables site," but after looking at the source - there were no tables. And the HTML was so easy to read. I was converted.

    Douglas
    Hello World

  3. #28
    SitePoint Zealot shock's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2001
    Location
    FL, USA
    Posts
    188
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    i'm a recent xhtml/css convert, and i think it overall emphsizes the care that the creator of the code put into it. a well done css/xhtml page will be drastically smaller in size, and compared to the previous table design (if available) will most likely will look fine in many many more browsers. sloppy code that doesn't validate through anything (if it has a few errors or warnings thats okay, i dont think it has to be 100% perfect) demonstrates ignorance above all. css may not be "the future of web design" but in order to evolve on the internet we need to adopt new programming languages that work better than the previous and also learn from the new one. for that reason i believe that everyone should at least make an effort to learn xhtml (not many differences between xhtml and html by the way) and css. if anything, css and table-based designs do work together and there is an effective fusion between the two if used properly. the all-css designs are a bit extreme, but it's interesting that they work just as well as all table designs and its good that people are experimenting.

    overall, there's a lot of sides to the argument(s) but i think to evolve we need to try new things, so at least make an effort to validate the site you make and once you do, then see if you want to go back to tables.
    ~%$-shock-$%~


Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •