SitePoint Sponsor

User Tag List

Page 1 of 5 12345 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 110
  1. #1
    SitePoint Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Iowa
    Posts
    7
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    CSS versus TABLES

    The CSS table-replacement concept sounds nice -

    I read through the sample chapters in HTML Utopia, and found that I basically knew all of that already. Yet, the primary problems with pixel differences are not addressed.

    MSIE6 displays things drastically different than Mozilla or Firefox - I have given up using <DIV></DIV> to align elements.

    It is futile trying to endlessly tweak out the values until they arrive at a middle ground...thus neither browser looks right.

    This simply sucks.

    Since there is no convention—no W3C standard to unify all browsers, CSS table design with <DIV class="blah"></DIV> is a poor direction to move.

    Unless there is a single piece of code placed in the header of all pages that allows all browsers to display ONE SQUARELY WRITTEN CSS DOCUMENT without all the ridiculous hacks and workarounds, then it is not going to stick.

    Is there a real future for CSS? I use it for text formatting—setting margins, indenting, etc. but aligning elements is futile.

    Just when it looks great in MSIE6, Mozilla looks crappy, and vice-versa.

    Why should we begin replacing reliable tables with unreliable CSS? Since so many people are using DSL or Cable rather than old dialup, why should we worry about the added load time for tables?

    I don't know, but it seems like CSS browser support is like hobbles on the legs of anyone desiring to go full-blown CSS.

    Am I the only one who shares these sentiments?

  2. #2
    SitePoint Wizard gold trophysilver trophybronze trophy dc dalton's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Right behind you, watching, always watching.
    Posts
    5,431
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I think your mistaking horrible browser adoption of CSS standards with CSS being "unreliable" ..... CSS support and adoption of the standards put forth by the w3c has never been better....... EXCEPT for our dear old friend Microsoft.

    The other thing you are forgetting is that IE 6 is now what, 3-4 years old? And again in their infinate wisdom M'soft has decided to wait until Shoehorn (oops) comes out...... Why do you think IE use is dropping liek a rock! By the time IE 7 comes out I honestly dont think anyone will care! Firefox, Mozilla, Safari and yes even Netscape and Opera are SCREAMING ahead with CSS support and adoption of the standards ........ only one GIANT PITA remains and we all know who that is,, uh hmm ... Mr Gates .. would you like to comment?

    There is NO magic bullet .... no single line of code that you can put in each page to make ALL browser play nice..... BUT you have to make a decision here.... are you going to stay trapped in the 90s with code loaded with tables or do you forge ahead into CSS, handling the problems now so your code IS compatible with all the new browsers and hopefully someday IE.

    You are also completely forgetting all the new devices that are rolling off the shelves that can display websites and things such as RSS ...... old clunky table laden sites arent going to work on them .... period

    And lastly you're overlooking all the advantages CSS "tableless" sites allow you...... FAST EASY design changes, SEO advantages up the wazzoo, the ability to reach more marketplaces and people with disabilities ...... and NO the whole world isnt on broadband ... as a matter of fact 50% of the world is still on a modem!

  3. #3
    Mazel tov! bronze trophy kohoutek's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Hamburg, Germany
    Posts
    4,248
    Mentioned
    30 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I cannot agree with this sentiment.

    Just take a look at CSS design galleries such as cssbeauty.com, sylegala.com, cssvault.com, csszengarden.com or at other css based sites such as for example, stopdesign.com, alistapart.com, simplebits.com, jasonsantamaria.com, zeldman.com ... , okay, I am tired of typing, but there are a few more dozen css based sites that work superbly in ALL browsers and MANY of them do not make use of hacks.

    It does take more time, it takes reading, researching and a lot more. There are great resources out there. It is possible to make superb designs that look the same in all browsers if you so wish. Just takes a bit of studying to get it right.

    Quote Originally Posted by jgideon
    The CSS table-replacement concept sounds nice -

    I read through the sample chapters in HTML Utopia, and found that I basically knew all of that already. Yet, the primary problems with pixel differences are not addressed.

    MSIE6 displays things drastically different than Mozilla or Firefox - I have given up using <DIV></DIV> to align elements.

    It is futile trying to endlessly tweak out the values until they arrive at a middle ground...thus neither browser looks right.

    This simply sucks.

    Since there is no convention—no W3C standard to unify all browsers, CSS table design with <DIV class="blah"></DIV> is a poor direction to move.

    Unless there is a single piece of code placed in the header of all pages that allows all browsers to display ONE SQUARELY WRITTEN CSS DOCUMENT without all the ridiculous hacks and workarounds, then it is not going to stick.

    Is there a real future for CSS? I use it for text formatting—setting margins, indenting, etc. but aligning elements is futile.

    Just when it looks great in MSIE6, Mozilla looks crappy, and vice-versa.

    Why should we begin replacing reliable tables with unreliable CSS? Since so many people are using DSL or Cable rather than old dialup, why should we worry about the added load time for tables?

    I don't know, but it seems like CSS browser support is like hobbles on the legs of anyone desiring to go full-blown CSS.

    Am I the only one who shares these sentiments?
    Maleika E. A. | Rockatee | Twitter | Dribbble



  4. #4
    SitePoint Zealot CodeLes's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Oklahoma
    Posts
    145
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    You know there was a day that I used the atari for my video gaming needs, the joy-stick and two button mode was seemless, then came such inventions as nintendo with the direction pad and additional buttons, and the shape of the thing, but hey, I got used to it, but in no time came along the playstation with yet a more stylish controller and even more buttons, what was I to do, I could have stayed in my world of bitmap graphics and 2-d gaming all because I didn't want to take the time to figure out the new controller, but I didn't, I struggled, but I moved up and gaming would never go back to nintendo, and eventually nintendo even upgraded to keep up, so...

    my point is, CSS is different from the old way of designing/developing a web site, but if you don't move on you will become extinct....

    sorry Mario,
    "If you were plowing a field, which would you rather use:
    2 strong oxen or 1024 chickens?"
    Seymour Cray

    Learn to code if you must, but first learn to solve problems.

  5. #5
    With More ! for your $ maxor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Scottsdale, Arizona
    Posts
    909
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Here's some advice that will help you out a lot.

    Don't approach a css layout like you would a tabular layout. If you try to create a css layout with table based layout principles you won't get too far. Css layouts and tables just aren't the same thing and need to be treated differently.

  6. #6
    SitePoint Wizard gold trophysilver trophybronze trophy dc dalton's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Right behind you, watching, always watching.
    Posts
    5,431
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    After re-reading your post and the comments so far it is apparent you are VERY frustrated with the project your working on at the moment.... and thats OK. Man I cant tell you how many times I SCREAMED at the top of my lungs while making the switch from tables (which I can do in my sleep) to CSS ...... man your not alone! It was one of the most frustrating things I have EVER Had to learn and Im sure everyone here went thru the same thing!

    Trust me Paul O didnt become the master he is in one sitting (please tell me you didnt Paul!) he fought and stuck to it to get to where he is and Im sure he can tell some horror stories about the learning curve.

    But you know ..... thats what this WHOLE site is about.... helping each other out thru the rough times. You can look back at post I made less than a month ago where I was just as frustrated!

    I also agree completely with maxor ..... the minute I stopped looking at my layouts as tables things became quite a bit easier..... its like breaking a bad habit, man its tough but once you do its a GREAT feeling!

  7. #7
    The CSS Clinic is open silver trophybronze trophy
    Paul O'B's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Hampshire UK
    Posts
    40,556
    Mentioned
    183 Post(s)
    Tagged
    6 Thread(s)
    Hi,

    Oh no not the css versus tables debate again I'm all css and tabled out. Anyway welcome to Sitepoint Forumsand for a second time poster you sure jumped in at the deep end

    This question has been asked and replied to endless times so pick out my replies from the posts below and apply them to your questions .

    http://www.sitepoint.com/forums/show...+versus+tables

    http://www.sitepoint.com/forums/show...+versus+tables

    I'll finish with a quote from one of the other posters in those threads.

    Quote Originally Posted by brothercake
    There is no CSS vs Tables debate - the "debate" consists of people clutching at straws, versus people trying to persuade them to let go. That's all.
    Enjoy your stay here

    Paul

  8. #8
    Sexiest Man Alive Parms18's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    70
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Point of order...

    The Firefox army may be quick to make claims of superior, all-around CSS support, but I'd like to point out that such claims are pretty misleading.

    Firefox does not support all the CSS that MSIE does. One significant example I can think of off the top of my head concerns the flipH and flipV CSS filters - you can't use both on the same element in Firefox, but you can in IE. I use this code a lot to cut down on the number of rotationally symmetrical images (e.g. using one corner image, and flipping it for the other three) I use, but it just doesn't work in Firefox.

    On the flip side, Firefox allegedly supports code that IE does not. But honestly, who cares if less than one percent of people will be able to use certain syntax? Why does support for code that is usless to the vast majority of users make Firefox a better browser?

    There may be a trend among the web-savvy demographic towards using Firefox, but it's downright silly to believe that your average user will understand, let alone agree with, any reasons you might use to purport that Firefox is a superior browser. Most users do not understand IE's flaws, and see no reason to make the switch. The computer came with IE, and it meets the user's needs. If it's not broken, don't fix it.

    Across-the-board coding is a romantic ideal, and while it certainly is a good practice, it's just not going to happen when there is syntax that does not work, no matter how much research you do, in both browsers. As long as IE makes up 99 percent of the market, I think IE support should be the priority.

    Don't get me wrong...I'd rather integrate Firefox into the operating system than IE. I'm instead speaking from the perspective of the average user.
    Parms18

  9. #9
    SitePoint Guru hgilbert's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    London
    Posts
    839
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    there is only one (not-extinct) browser where a pure CSS site won't look good.
    That is Dillo.

    Now who on earth would want to use Dillo?

    Dillo is an *nix browser that runs on all *nixes including handhelds.

    Dillo is a stupidly fast browser with a very low memory print.
    No wonder - it does away with CSS / Javascript / Frames and HTTPS.

    There are patches that will allow Dillo to work with SSL and Frames but no Javascript and CSS.

    My guess is that the number of Dillo users should surpass the number of Netscape 4.x users as Dillo becomes a more attractive choice for very low spec refurbished PC, handhelds, and Linux mini-CDs or pen-drives.

    Some sites like OS News and Slashdot are very Dillo friendly. But it figures these are very very nerdy sites ..

    Browsing with dillo gets boring - it is ugly. The zippy fastness is soon given up by the slower but cosmetic and fully-functional browsers.

    If you add tables to your site - at least one group will be pretty happy - the dilloers.
    If you add CSS only - ... well you would be happier as CSS is piss-easy to maintain. I do not know how tables go against or for accessibility yet.
    Last edited by hgilbert; Jan 12, 2005 at 18:00. Reason: looks like i am developing dislexia (borrowing != boring)


  10. #10
    SitePoint Wizard gold trophysilver trophybronze trophy dc dalton's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Right behind you, watching, always watching.
    Posts
    5,431
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Parms18
    As long as IE makes up 99 percent of the market, I think IE support should be the priority.
    Better check your stats there buddy - IE aint no 99% anymore..

    http://www.w3schools.com/browsers/browsers_stats.asp

    AND POINT OF ORDER POINT - I have had UNTOLD number of clients (we build machines and repair them on the side) call to ask what they can use INSTEAD of IE - they are sick and tired of the viruses, security patches
    - (two more yesterday BTW), spyware .... sick and freaking tired of it.... and when newspapers (like the wall street journal) and TV shows start talking about the problems it SCARES the public and yes they change .......... FF and Mozilla are NOT only for the techo crowd!

  11. #11
    SitePoint Addict
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    UK, London
    Posts
    312
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Parms18
    Point of order...

    The Firefox army may be quick to make claims of superior, all-around CSS support, but I'd like to point out that such claims are pretty misleading.

    Firefox does not support all the CSS that MSIE does. One significant example I can think of off the top of my head concerns the flipH and flipV CSS filters - you can't use both on the same element in Firefox, but you can in IE. I use this code a lot to cut down on the number of rotationally symmetrical images (e.g. using one corner image, and flipping it for the other three) I use, but it just doesn't work in Firefox.
    And pray where is flipH in the CSS specs?
    http://www.w3.org/TR/CSS21/

    It is a microsoft invention, not the W3, so there is not much surprise that it only works in IE...
    Chris Heilmann
    Blog | Articles | Binaries

  12. #12
    SitePoint Addict
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    UK, London
    Posts
    312
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by hgilbert
    there is only one (not-extinct) browser where a pure CSS site won't look good.
    "Look good" is subjective, "work / make sense" isn't. As long as the page has a proper structure it is a joy in a good browser and in a text browser / screen reader.
    Chris Heilmann
    Blog | Articles | Binaries

  13. #13
    SitePoint Addict KelliShaver's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    Morehead, KY
    Posts
    308
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    My site looks identical in IE and FF and in fact, most sites that I've done since making the siwthc to CSS for layout purposes have, and I've never used a browser hack. Really, I'm not trying to sound arrogant or condescending here, but I just don't see why this is a problem for so many people. I code to standards and I've never experienced it. You need to understand how IE and FF apply default margins/paddings to tags and then just specify these properties for yourself. Beyond that, I really dont' see where the confusion lies.

  14. #14
    SitePoint Addict
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    UK, London
    Posts
    312
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by KelliShaver
    My site looks identical in IE and FF and in fact, most sites that I've done since making the siwthc to CSS for layout purposes have, and I've never used a browser hack. Really, I'm not trying to sound arrogant or condescending here, but I just don't see why this is a problem for so many people. I code to standards and I've never experienced it. You need to understand how IE and FF apply default margins/paddings to tags and then just specify these properties for yourself. Beyond that, I really dont' see where the confusion lies.
    When the design is right, it is no problem. The biggest mistake most people who complain about CSS vs Tables is that their screen design is made for print, not for the web. Fact is that as the designer you don't own any of the measurements of the site, te user can (or might have to) overwrite anything you do. Once you swallowed that, web development is a lot easier.
    Chris Heilmann
    Blog | Articles | Binaries

  15. #15
    Sexiest Man Alive Parms18's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    70
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by codepoet
    And pray where is flipH in the CSS specs?
    http://www.w3.org/TR/CSS21/
    Regardless of whether Microsoft created the two filters, Firefox supports them both, just not in tandem. Thus, whereas IE fully supports them both, Firefox only offers limited compatibility.

    Quote Originally Posted by dc dalton
    Better check your stats there buddy - IE aint no 99% anymore..

    http://www.w3schools.com/browsers/browsers_stats.asp
    The data presented at that link are based on the traffic log for w3schools.com. Since this is the case, we are certainly not getting a representative sample, and are not using a statistically significant sample size. Too often I see websites with a purely web-savvy audience boasting statistics that are consequently unrealistic. Yes, this site does claim to monitor other statistics on the Internet to verify its own data; however, the majority of the other statistics I have seen online have come from the logs, again, of web-savvy sites like the W3C and hit counter software companies.
    Parms18

  16. #16
    SitePoint Addict
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    UK, London
    Posts
    312
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Parms18
    Regardless of whether Microsoft created the two filters, Firefox supports them both, just not in tandem. Thus, whereas IE fully supports them both, Firefox only offers limited compatibility.
    Agreed, it is a stupid move of Mozilla to support non-standard effects. However, developers relying on them forced a lot of browser developers to do so. Guess why opera identifies as IE by default?

    Quote Originally Posted by Parms18
    The data presented at that link are based on the traffic log for w3schools.com. Since this is the case, we are certainly not getting a representative sample. Too often I see websites with a purely web-savvy audience boasting statistics that are consequently unrealistic. Yes, this site does claim to monitor other statistics on the Internet to verify its own data; however, the majority of the other statistics I have seen online have come from the logs, again, of web-savvy sites like the W3C and hit counter software companies.
    Seriously, I don't care how many percent of my users use Mozilla or MSIE, I make things work according to standards, check in Mozilla, Opera and Safari and fix for IE. If a browser supports loads of seemingly good filters becomes rather unimportant when you see how much of the standards it fails to support properly:
    http://www.positioniseverything.net/explorer.html

    As shown above in the Opera example, browser statistics are totally pointless, as browsers allow for spoofing and browser sniffing is simply not reliable.
    http://www.quirksmode.org/js/detect.html
    http://www.pantos.org/atw/f-35448.html
    http://www.simplebits.com/notebook/2004/12/17/ie5.html
    http://meyerweb.com/eric/thoughts/20...are-dont-care/
    Chris Heilmann
    Blog | Articles | Binaries

  17. #17
    Sexiest Man Alive Parms18's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    70
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I'm not going to argue with you about standards compliancy...laziness is the only thing stopping those who choose not to do so.

    The subject here isn't standards compliancy, however; rather, it's whether or not cross-browser compatibility is truly purposeful when the vast majority (I'm sticking to 99 percent) of users are on the same browser.
    Parms18

  18. #18
    SitePoint Addict
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    UK, London
    Posts
    312
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Parms18
    I'm not going to argue with you about standards compliancy...laziness is the only thing stopping those who choose not to do so.

    The subject here isn't standards compliancy, however; rather, it's whether or not cross-browser compatibility is truly purposeful when the vast majority (I'm sticking to 99 percent) of users are on the same browser.
    You are aware that there are some weird people using other operating systems than Windows?
    Chris Heilmann
    Blog | Articles | Binaries

  19. #19
    Google Engineer polvero's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Mountain View
    Posts
    567
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    this sounds like a classic case of a css novice. why this topic got hi-lighted? who knows. There must be dozens of topics in the css category already that talk about this.

    saying css has no future is like saying web standards weren't going to get anywhere.
    Here's a quote from HappyCog.com
    It’s simple: designing with web standards means lower costs, reduced production time, and increased accessibility (reach more people, exclude fewer)
    case closed.

  20. #20
    With More ! for your $ maxor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Scottsdale, Arizona
    Posts
    909
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Parms18
    Point of order...

    The Firefox army may be quick to make claims of superior, all-around CSS support, but I'd like to point out that such claims are pretty misleading.

    Firefox does not support all the CSS that MSIE does. One significant example I can think of off the top of my head concerns the flipH and flipV CSS filters - you can't use both on the same element in Firefox, but you can in IE. I use this code a lot to cut down on the number of rotationally symmetrical images (e.g. using one corner image, and flipping it for the other three) I use, but it just doesn't work in Firefox.
    Wow you make a real strong case for Firefox not supporting more of the CSS Spec than IE does by giving us an example of something that's not even in the W3's CSS spec.

    IE can't even get the box model right and you're talking about flipH and flipV???

  21. #21
    Sexiest Man Alive Parms18's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    70
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Whoa, calm down.

    I just needed an example off the top of my head that showed, W3 specifications or not, that IE does things Firefox does not do (or does not do as well).

    About the OS issue...yeah, it slipped my mind at the time. There's a pretty big number of people using Safari on the Mac platform.
    Parms18

  22. #22
    SitePoint Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2001
    Posts
    22
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Hello everyone,


    I am in the middle of creating an ASP.NET web business application and have been looking at the topic of seperating content from presentation by using CSS to design the positional layout of the page like the CSSZenGarden.com

    I've heard however that it might not be a good idea to do this for a web application...only a branding type site.

    Can anyone comment on this for me. I'd like to try and learn how to use CSS and a tableless design for speed reasons. I'd also like to seperate the design from the content so my C#.net developers can concentrate more on the functionality of the application rather then the design.

    Thanks.
    Jim Murray
    LegendLogbooks.com - A VirtueTech, Inc. Company
    E: info@legendlogbooks.com
    WWW: http://www.legendlogbooks.com

  23. #23
    With More ! for your $ maxor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Scottsdale, Arizona
    Posts
    909
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by VirtueTech
    Hello everyone,


    I am in the middle of creating an ASP.NET web business application and have been looking at the topic of seperating content from presentation by using CSS to design the positional layout of the page like the CSSZenGarden.com

    I've heard however that it might not be a good idea to do this for a web application...only a branding type site.

    Can anyone comment on this for me. I'd like to try and learn how to use CSS and a tableless design for speed reasons. I'd also like to seperate the design from the content so my C#.net developers can concentrate more on the functionality of the application rather then the design.

    Thanks.
    Using CSS for a web application is a great idea! However, ASP.NET can make it difficult to make full use of CSS. ASP.NET makes it very easy to slip into using tables, inline styles font tags etc.

  24. #24
    SitePoint Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2001
    Posts
    22
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by maxor
    Using CSS for a web application is a great idea! However, ASP.NET can make it difficult to make full use of CSS. ASP.NET makes it very easy to slip into using tables, inline styles font tags etc.
    I figured it would be ok to have a table every now and then. right or wrong?
    Jim Murray
    LegendLogbooks.com - A VirtueTech, Inc. Company
    E: info@legendlogbooks.com
    WWW: http://www.legendlogbooks.com

  25. #25
    SitePoint Enthusiast
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Edmonton, the upper part of AB.
    Posts
    36
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I figured it would be ok to have a table every now and then. right or wrong?
    Tables should be used for tabular data. Period.

    Come on everyone. The goal of css is to separate design from content, and i believe it's a noble one. Design and content shouldn't even be in the same room. Granted, css is relatively new so not yet supported verbatim, and yes, designing for cross-browser is harder at the moment with css than with tables. But again, newer technology is gonna have some problems. However, i'm of the opinion that the extra time and effort taken into making an accessible css site is worth it, considering the well recognized benefits over tables. CSS is up there with gay marriage and globalisation. It's going to happen no matter what. It will, however, happen much less painlessly if everyone just accepted it. A few years from now, gays will be married in alberta, and the world will speak in css. csszengarden will be just a "historical curiosity" as design and content will be separated like oil and water.
    Stick with it, and eventually you shall reap the benefits. Because in the long run, nothing good will come from resisting the inevitable. Really.


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
  •