SitePoint Sponsor

User Tag List

Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 26 to 50 of 85
  1. #26
    SitePoint Wizard bronze trophy
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Augusta, Georgia, United States
    Posts
    4,042
    Mentioned
    16 Post(s)
    Tagged
    3 Thread(s)
    To me this is much more readable then the alternative… just saying.

    Code CSS:
    .aggregated {
     
    	list-style: none;
    	padding: 0;
    	margin: 0 .5em;
     
     
    	 a {
    		display: block;
    		font-size: 1.25em;
    		font-weight: bold;
    		color: black;
    		text-decoration: none;
    		padding: .5em .35em;
    		border-bottom: 1px solid #818686;
    	}
     
    	.ad a {
    		background-color: #D8EB9C;
    		color: #D03135;
    		text-transform: uppercase;
    		font-family: Helvetica, sans-serif;
    	}
     
    }

    Code CSS:
    .aggregated {
    	list-style: none;
    	padding: 0;
    	margin: 0 .5em;
    }
     
    	.aggregated a {
    		display: block;
    		font-size: 1.25em;
    		font-weight: bold;
    		color: black;
    		text-decoration: none;
    		padding: .5em .35em;
    		border-bottom: 1px solid #818686;
    	}
     
    	.aggregated .ad a {
    		background-color: #D8EB9C;
    		color: #D03135;
    		text-transform: uppercase;
    		font-family: Helvetica, sans-serif;
    	}

    Is that really all that complex or hard to understand for you "none programmers".
    The only code I hate more than my own is everyone else's.

  2. #27
    SitePoint Addict
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    365
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by C. Ankerstjerne View Post
    Can someone please tell me where the actual benefit is here? I looked through the examples, and it seems like most of the LESS code samples requires more lines than the actual CSS output.

    Things like globally updating colours in one move is nice, but this can be done much faster in a number of less-complicated ways.
    How so? Seems that LESS was invented to provide that. Do you have a CSS only way to globally update values in one move? I am not even a programmer and when writing CSS for the first time, even I was saying to myself "I wish I could just define this in one place." I didn't even know I was talking about variables. So if you have a way to do it, please tell.

    Abut the extra lines, that doesn't really matter, if the compiled output has fewer lines. The point is not to get lesser lines of code, but to make the code easier to maintain.

    Quote Originally Posted by Oddz
    To me this is much more readable then the alternative… just saying.
    I'd have to agree.

  3. #28
    SitePoint Wizard bronze trophy C. Ankerstjerne's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    The Kingdom of Denmark
    Posts
    2,692
    Mentioned
    7 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by oddz
    Is that really all that complex or hard to understand for you "none programmers".
    I wouldn't know about that, being a programmer myself, but I don't see any advantages of the first example over the second.


    Quote Originally Posted by sdt76
    Do you have a CSS only way to globally update values in one move?
    LESS isn't CSS only, so that's really a straw man. A simple search-replace is a lot easier, though. If you really want variables, why not use a simple PHP (or whatever server-side language you use)-parsed style sheet? Same functionality, without a massive framework or a new syntax.
    Christian Ankerstjerne
    <p<strong<abbr/HTML/ 4 teh win</>
    <>In Soviet Russia, website codes you!

  4. #29
    om nom nom nom Stomme poes's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    10,233
    Mentioned
    47 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Oddz' last example looks to my eyes tomato tomahto (I don't get a benefit, except the "original" css tells me more since I don't use code folding... so if the .aggregated class was already scrolled off-screen I'd only be sure the indented "a" was a child of someone... would have to scroll up to remember who... at least if I were sitting on that page for a long time, left, came back and forgot where I was). Though I do use that indenting style to tell me the same thing.

    While it may not be that big of a deal to repeat 5+ lines of CSS to support many CSS3 properties in all capable browsers, it does quickly become a pain. Even worst is if implementation changes there isn't a single thing to change, you need to go through and update all occurrances of the code. Using less a single function can be created to apply the CSS3 and easily updates once if something changes.
    I like to lump this stuff into "the text editor or IDE should be awesome enough to do most of this for you" section. I mean, to me, it's a code management thing, and text editors should let you manage most of these issues your code. Maybe that Less/SASS is popular means people aren't using good editors? Or don't have access to them?

    But if your site is using lots and lots and lots and lots and lots of the vendor prefixes? Yeah, the SASS/LESS method could make the resulting stylesheet much easier to read. When I paste from a buffer, the writing is easy but the reading starts to get pretty ugly quickly. They say you read code more than you write it in most jobs.

    Even regular expressions being used in the selectors would be useful as well,
    Regular expressions in CSS is definitely tempting.

    I don't understand the resistance to change on these things, for the very artificial reason that people don't want CSS to become a 'programming language'. The primary purpose of the language should be to make it useful, not to please some people who don't want to have learn some new concepts. Oh well.
    I dunno about anyone else, but as someone who is completely comfortable in CSS, when I hear (usually) programmers whine about how there are no rules and it's senseless and who the hell wrote this and what were they smoking and this is why stupid designers shouldn't be allowed to write languages... I roll my eyes and get kinda pissed.
    This is programmers complaining that CSS isn't a programming language. It's not that it would bother me if someone rewrote CSS to be a programming language, it's the people not bothering to learn the rules of CSS and then saying "automargins don't work, it didn't center the span." Go back to XSLT then, I say. Or, now you have less/sass. Whatever prevents you from bothering to learn CSS, and still gets the job done.

    Do you have a CSS only way to globally update values in one move?
    I use a text editor for that. Sometimes I struggle, but that's due to my lesser vim knowledge, not because it can't be done. Global search and replace takes a lot of load off writing.

  5. #30
    SitePoint Addict
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    365
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    LESS isn't CSS only, so that's really a straw man. A simple search-replace is a lot easier, though.
    "Things like globally updating colours in one move is nice, but this can be done much faster in a number of less-complicated ways."

    I just want to know what those ways are, short of search and replace, which is definitely not less complicated, or faster, and is definitely more of a hassle than setting global values IMHO.

    If I have a choice: set one color with a variable, then change it once and upload the compiled CSS, or do a search and replace over and over, I would choose the former.

    Quote Originally Posted by Stomme poes
    I use a text editor for that. Sometimes I struggle, but that's due to my lesser vim knowledge, not because it can't be done. Global search and replace takes a lot of load off writing.
    Sure, but why bother if you don't have to. It doesn't seem very DRY friendly to sit there and copy/paste paste paste, when all you have to do is change one variable, compile, then upload the standard CSS. I still don't see the benefit of doing it the hard way.

  6. #31
    SitePoint Wizard bronze trophy C. Ankerstjerne's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    The Kingdom of Denmark
    Posts
    2,692
    Mentioned
    7 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    "Things like globally updating colours in one move is nice, but this can be done much faster in a number of less-complicated ways."

    I just want to know what those ways are, short of search and replace, which is definitely not less complicated, or faster, and is definitely more of a hassle than setting global values IMHO.

    If I have a choice: set one color with a variable, then change it once and upload the compiled CSS, or do a search and replace over and over, I would choose the former.
    So pressing Ctrl+H is more complicated than installing LESS on all your hosting accounts, not to mention learning a new syntax? It might be that I'm simply very proficient in search-replacing, but I just don't buy that argument. And you wouldn't need to do the search-replace over and over, any more than you would have to re-compile the CSS over and over.

    Also, you didn't comment on my alternative method, i.e. using the server-side language you're already using to parse a style sheet with variables.
    Christian Ankerstjerne
    <p<strong<abbr/HTML/ 4 teh win</>
    <>In Soviet Russia, website codes you!

  7. #32
    SitePoint Addict
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    365
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by C. Ankerstjerne View Post
    So pressing Ctrl+H is more complicated than installing LESS on all your hosting accounts, not to mention learning a new syntax? It might be that I'm simply very proficient in search-replacing, but I just don't buy that argument. And you wouldn't need to do the search-replace over and over, any more than you would have to re-compile the CSS over and over.
    No need to install LESS. You just use LESS.app and it automatically converts the LESS code to standard CSS and upload. So right now, yeah it seems easier. But it could be you are using a search and replace method I am not familiar with.

    Also, you didn't comment on my alternative method, i.e. using the server-side language you're already using to parse a style sheet with variables.
    See above.

  8. #33
    Under Construction silver trophybronze trophy AussieJohn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Sydney, Australia
    Posts
    776
    Mentioned
    11 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by oddz View Post
    LESS is a tool.
    Oddz nailed it

    Srlsy though, I think all of us agree that even if we would use LESS, that the client side version is a horrible idea. If we get over the fact that a JS implementation for this obviously sucks, there are some niceties to be had.

    Quote Originally Posted by Stomme Poes
    Regular expressions in CSS is definitely tempting.
    Not surprised *you* agree with regular expressions. Agreed though, regex selectors *would* be awesome.


    I see a lot of people saying "Why use variables, why not use search-replace". Would you use text strings that are the same, spread out in your [insert language of choice] applications? Nawwww, you'd create a variable. Why shouldn't we treat CSS the same way?
    If nothing else, the variables and functions (mixins) would be the perfect solution to keep CSS more DRY.

    While I realise CSS is supposed to be *cascading* ... the theory behind defining global properties in place and letting them cascade down works well... until you have large site with lots of selectors. Having 1 style rule that cascades with 30 selectors in it isn't very nice and can make it harder to keep track of what styles are applied to a particular selector. (I know there's always Firebug, but I'm talking about looking in the CSS file directly, after you've written 1000 lines, it might not necessarily be easy or clear what's happening if you have selectors all over the place with different styles being applied. Maybe this is just my way of writing CSS)


    Regards, Devil's Advocate (& lover of variables)
    var details = {
    . . web: "afterlight.com.au",
    . . photos: "jvdl.id.au",
    . . psa: "usethelatestversion.com"
    }

  9. #34
    Utopia, Inc. silver trophy
    ScallioXTX's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    The Netherlands
    Posts
    8,892
    Mentioned
    138 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)
    As far as I can see there are 2 real benefits of variables over search / replace (in the context of colors).

    1) I can give them a name I can remember and that actually mean something. Compare which @mainLinkColor with #a8c211. Which do you like best?

    2) If I change the value, the variable name remains the same, which is an advantage. Let me give a for instance:

    Code css:
    .somesection {
      color: #123;
    }
     
    .someothersection {
      color: #456;
    }
     
    .blah {
      color: #456;
    }
     
    .etc {
      color: #123;
    }

    Now suppose somebody wants me to change every #123 to #456. I can indeed easily do that with a search and replace. But, suppose now they get back to me and say the color needs be changed back (and I don't use a versioning control system), and I'm screwed because the color is the same everywhere and I have to figure out manually for each class if it's supposed to be that value, or if it was supposed to be the other value.
    Now, had I had,

    Code css:
    .somesection {
      color: @color1;
    }
     
    .someothersection {
      color: @color2;
    }
     
    .blah {
      color: @color2;
    }
     
    .etc {
      color: @color1;
    }

    I could have just changed the value of @color1 back to what it was and be done.

    (this is the problem of all search/replace, not just for CSS. Which is why ideally you should always ctrl+f the thing you're about to replace and check if you'd really want to replace each instance, so as to avoid hour long debugging sessions because some of them should not have been replaced at all.)
    Rémon - Hosting Advisor

    Minimal Bookmarks Tree
    My Google Chrome extension: browsing bookmarks made easy

  10. #35
    SitePoint Enthusiast
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    29
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by C. Ankerstjerne View Post
    So pressing Ctrl+H is more complicated than installing LESS on all your hosting accounts, not to mention learning a new syntax? It might be that I'm simply very proficient in search-replacing, but I just don't buy that argument. And you wouldn't need to do the search-replace over and over, any more than you would have to re-compile the CSS over and over.
    I just looked at LESS for the first time. I don't know about you, but it took me about 3 minutes to figure out all the additional syntax. I think I could use it now no problem. Didn't exactly have to spend much time learning anything new, because it's really not anything new. It's just new to CSS.

    Mixins, variables/constants and expressions are things I've wished CSS had. It's not surprising to me somebody else thought the same and created LESS. Maybe it's not useful to you, or maybe you are just so use to CSS that you are comfortable with it and would be content to continue using what has managed to work for you so far. Seeing as how I'm relatively new to CSS though, I see these as being features CSS probably should have natively. If not should, then simply could, which is good enough reason for me. I'm all for expanding my set of tools instead of becoming attached to only one and forcing it to work in all situations.

    My opinion, for what it's worth.

  11. #36
    SitePoint Wizard bronze trophy
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Augusta, Georgia, United States
    Posts
    4,042
    Mentioned
    16 Post(s)
    Tagged
    3 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by C. Ankerstjerne
    A simple search-replace is a lot easier,
    I have no trust in search and replace, the whole thing scares me.
    The only code I hate more than my own is everyone else's.

  12. #37
    SitePoint Wizard bronze trophy
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Augusta, Georgia, United States
    Posts
    4,042
    Mentioned
    16 Post(s)
    Tagged
    3 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by ScallioXTX View Post
    As far as I can see there are 2 real benefits of variables over search / replace (in the context of colors).

    1) I can give them a name I can remember and that actually mean something. Compare which @mainLinkColor with #a8c211. Which do you like best?

    2) If I change the value, the variable name remains the same, which is an advantage. Let me give a for instance:

    Code css:
    .somesection {
      color: #123;
    }
     
    .someothersection {
      color: #456;
    }
     
    .blah {
      color: #456;
    }
     
    .etc {
      color: #123;
    }

    Now suppose somebody wants me to change every #123 to #456. I can indeed easily do that with a search and replace. But, suppose now they get back to me and say the color needs be changed back (and I don't use a versioning control system), and I'm screwed because the color is the same everywhere and I have to figure out manually for each class if it's supposed to be that value, or if it was supposed to be the other value.
    Now, had I had,

    Code css:
    .somesection {
      color: @color1;
    }
     
    .someothersection {
      color: @color2;
    }
     
    .blah {
      color: @color2;
    }
     
    .etc {
      color: @color1;
    }

    I could have just changed the value of @color1 back to what it was and be done.

    (this is the problem of all search/replace, not just for CSS. Which is why ideally you should always ctrl+f the thing you're about to replace and check if you'd really want to replace each instance, so as to avoid hour long debugging sessions because some of them should not have been replaced at all.)
    Right now I have to do this which sucks. Using less there could be a single style sheet that assigns the server-side variables to CSS variables, which would much nicer.

    Code css:
    .somesection {
      color: <?php echo $color1; ?>;
    }
     
    .someothersection {
      color: <?php echo $color1; ?>;
    }
     
    .blah {
      color: <?php echo $color1; ?>;
    }
     
    .etc {
      color: <?php echo $color1; ?>;
    }
    The only code I hate more than my own is everyone else's.

  13. #38
    SitePoint Wizard bronze trophy C. Ankerstjerne's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    The Kingdom of Denmark
    Posts
    2,692
    Mentioned
    7 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    sdt76
    Might be. Compared to converting a site from ASP.NET to PHP using search-replace, updating a style sheet is pretty straight-forward. And if you really want variables, using a PHP-parsed CSS-file is still significantly more straight-forward.

    ScallioXTX
    If you would every really need that, simply add a meaningful comment after the line. Thus, you can do a search-replace for background-color: #000; // menu background/background-color: #333; // menu background. No worse than having two variables with the same value.

    It might just be me, but I still don't see it.
    Christian Ankerstjerne
    <p<strong<abbr/HTML/ 4 teh win</>
    <>In Soviet Russia, website codes you!

  14. #39
    om nom nom nom Stomme poes's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    10,233
    Mentioned
    47 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    I see a lot of people saying "Why use variables, why not use search-replace". Would you use text strings that are the same, spread out in your [insert language of choice] applications? Nawwww, you'd create a variable. Why shouldn't we treat CSS the same way?
    This is what ends up getting spit back to the browser anyway (strings that are the same, spread out in your CSS), since CSS itself still doesn't support variables. Less does. CSS doesn't.
    It's supposed to save write time, and if it cleans up vendor prefixes, it's supposed to save read time as well. If I'm ever in a situation where what Less/Sass offers really gives that to me and my other tools fail me, I'll go back and reconsider them. Today, they are an unnecessary layer of bull for me. Doesn't mean they are not for others in other situations.

    I personally like seeing the colours themselves rather than a name for them, and the issue about not versioning/having crappy versioning has indeed hit me, but whose fault is that? Mine, for not using versioning. Because, I *did* have a situation with a site (a large site... probably the largest CSS I've ever written) where a manager kept wanting to change entire colour schemes... so not "change the background colour" but then you have to keep contrast in mind and change the colour, borders, and buttons. Then he looked at it for about 3 days and wanted to go back. Or to another scheme. And he did this for months. If I had been smart and had been using git or something at the time, that would have been a single command in my terminal and, done. The page is now abandoned since the site is gone and I still sometimes go looking at the CSS sheets where I see all my lines of commented-out old colours. Bleh.

  15. #40
    om nom nom nom Stomme poes's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    10,233
    Mentioned
    47 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    I retardedly posted this in the wrong thread...
    ...the Sass site has an article, SASS vs SCSS, which syntax is better which has some of the warnings (for example, the possibility of two much nesting if you don't watch yourself) and whatnot

  16. #41
    SitePoint Enthusiast AntunTun's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    35
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I saw many answers but one thing is common to all of them - No one actually use LESS so I think that this fact pretty much tells enough about it.
    My site is Croatia property

  17. #42
    SitePoint Addict
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    365
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    That doesn't really tell anything about it. Three could be many reasons for that. For me it is because it is new and so I haven't gotten a chance to try it. I plan to try it out on my next project.

  18. #43
    I solve practical problems. bronze trophy
    Michael Morris's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Knoxville TN
    Posts
    2,011
    Mentioned
    56 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I've been waiting on a PHP implementation myself. My impression of it is that it is a very flexible tool - as such it can be easy to misuse. The criticisms I've seen in the thread seem to me to be about that misuse - not about what less can or cannot do itself.

    In and of itself it encourages DRY markup. CSS is very, very repetitive - and the moment someone says you can change something with "search & replace" I just...



    I'll flat out state that if you think copypasta code and having to use the search/replace tool is a good thing you're a moron. Doesn't matter if you're dealing with HTML/CSS/PHP/JS/C or whatever, you're a moron if you resort to those tools - a moron that is only and will only ever be capable of "fire and forget" projects that aren't maintained over time.

  19. #44
    SitePoint Wizard bronze trophy C. Ankerstjerne's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    The Kingdom of Denmark
    Posts
    2,692
    Mentioned
    7 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Well, this moron has quite a few websites with many years on their back. The oldest one is about ten years old. Not sure that counts as a fire and forget project.

    I'd be interested in knowing why search-replacing one colour for another is apparently so very, very bad, while installing a framework to do the exact same thing for you is not.
    Christian Ankerstjerne
    <p<strong<abbr/HTML/ 4 teh win</>
    <>In Soviet Russia, website codes you!

  20. #45
    I solve practical problems. bronze trophy
    Michael Morris's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Knoxville TN
    Posts
    2,011
    Mentioned
    56 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Less isn't a framework. It's a an extension to CSS to allow for more programmatic behavior with the stated goal of reducing repetition. I've not looked at any frameworks based on it - and the horror stories of them I've seen in this thread dissuade me from taking a look. But that is a seperate issue from less.

  21. #46
    SitePoint Wizard bronze trophy C. Ankerstjerne's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    The Kingdom of Denmark
    Posts
    2,692
    Mentioned
    7 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    From what I can see, it's an advanced CSS generator, retaining some CSS syntax, rather than an extension of CSS itself.
    Christian Ankerstjerne
    <p<strong<abbr/HTML/ 4 teh win</>
    <>In Soviet Russia, website codes you!

  22. #47
    Utopia, Inc. silver trophy
    ScallioXTX's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    The Netherlands
    Posts
    8,892
    Mentioned
    138 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by C. Ankerstjerne View Post
    I'd be interested in knowing why search-replacing one colour for another is apparently so very, very bad, while installing a framework to do the exact same thing for you is not.
    See post 34

    You then said "Yes, well, but you can prepend it with stuff like /* main home color */".
    Sure, you could, but what if someone types /** home main color **/ , or too many spaces, or mian instead of main, or, or, or ...

    Point is, search replace the way you do it is not semantic, the search/replace can only look for raw text without having any clue what it's actually looking at, and you can never be 100% guaranteed that the end effect will actually be what you wanted it to be.
    Whereas with LESS, when you change the value of the variable all instances of that variable will be replaced, so you can be 100% sure it hits everything you want to hit, and nothing else.
    It's completely different from search/replace in any way.
    Rémon - Hosting Advisor

    Minimal Bookmarks Tree
    My Google Chrome extension: browsing bookmarks made easy

  23. #48
    SitePoint Wizard bronze trophy C. Ankerstjerne's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    The Kingdom of Denmark
    Posts
    2,692
    Mentioned
    7 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Of course it's different. I just don't see why it's bad. And surely, a misspelled comment is just as likely as a misspelled variable?
    Christian Ankerstjerne
    <p<strong<abbr/HTML/ 4 teh win</>
    <>In Soviet Russia, website codes you!

  24. #49
    I solve practical problems. bronze trophy
    Michael Morris's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Knoxville TN
    Posts
    2,011
    Mentioned
    56 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by C. Ankerstjerne View Post
    Of course it's different. I just don't see why it's bad. And surely, a misspelled comment is just as likely as a misspelled variable?
    If after ten years you don't see it I hardly see how anything on a message board, from pithy comment up to enlightened thorough example, will help.

  25. #50
    SitePoint Wizard bronze trophy C. Ankerstjerne's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    The Kingdom of Denmark
    Posts
    2,692
    Mentioned
    7 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    On the contrary: If you can show me a good reason to use LESS, I'll be more than happy to give it another look. I just haven't seen anything thus far that compels me to reconsider. The variable functionality is nifty, but I really don't believe it would save me significant amounts of time, if any at all. Besides, if I really wanted to be able to use variables in my CSS, it wouldn't take me long to write a PHP script allowing me to do just that. I don't use vendor-specific CSS, mainly for idealistic reasons, so this is certainly not a selling point for me.

    If you think this is a great new tool, then I won't stand in your way. If you can convince me that it is in fact a great new tool, I'll be happy to take it for a spin. But please, do so with constructive arguments, rather than snide remarks, and until then, recognize that it's not necessarily a one size fits all tool.
    Christian Ankerstjerne
    <p<strong<abbr/HTML/ 4 teh win</>
    <>In Soviet Russia, website codes you!


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
  •