|
|
Posted by al jones on 04/17/07 21:39
On Tue, 17 Apr 2007 17:34:56 GMT, Jon Slaughter wrote:
> "Bergamot" <bergamot@visi.com> wrote in message
> news:58jtjrF2gvgppU1@mid.individual.net...
>> Jon Slaughter wrote:
>>> "Jon Slaughter" <Jon_Slaughter@Hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>> news:FFTUh.17144$Um6.16224@newssvr12.news.prodigy.net...
>>>>
>>>> "Bergamot" <bergamot@visi.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:58ian2F2go2d2U1@mid.individual.net...
>>>>> Jon Slaughter wrote:
>>>>>> http://www.jonslaughter.com/Test2.html
>>>>>
>>>>> Why don't you use border properties for the bars across the top/bottom
>>>>> and down the sides? It would be much simpler than using all those divs.
>>>>> They're only pretending to be borders anyway.
>>>>
>>>> Yes but it doesn't look as good.
>>
>> Your test page has been removed, but I remember what it looked like.
>> http://www.bergamotus.ws/samples/4corners.html
>> So how does this not look "as good" as your attempt?
>>
>
> It does but that is not what I want for my home page.
>
>>> OK, nevermind. I got it. CSS is a fucking mess.
>>
>> No doubt a lot of your problem relates to misconceptions about how
>> things are supposed to work. If you took the time to actually learn
>> about the properties and positioning methods you are attempting to use
>> instead of hacking away at things, you might be less frustrated.
>>
>
> I've programming in assembly 15 years ago for about 5 years, C/C++ for last
> 15 years, and C# for last 2 years. I'm not the best programmer but I like
> consistancy. CSS is not consistant. Its not made to do what it should.
> Its markup and transformational abilities are amazing for what they do but
> they are severly limited. I program on and off though and the last few years
> I have not programming much except learning C# and .NET.
>
>> CSS takes time, practice and patience to learn. It's unrealistic to
>> think you'll get it overnight, and just whining that it is a mess says
>> something about your willingness to put in the necessary effort. And it
>> does take effort.
>>
>
> Sure. But thats not something I want to do. I have more important things to
> do than learn every new super duper programming language that comes a long.
> I want to get my web site done and be over with it. I'm not a web designer
> or programming and I don't want to be. Sure I want to put together pages
> when I need to do but its way to much trouble to do simple stuff(mainly the
> browser differences).
>
> What pisses me off about web design and turns me off from it is the total
> lack of unification. This is a big deal when your developing cross system
> compatibility. Its just a mess IMO. CSS was suppose to fix that and be
> leveraged to increase the visual transformations of pre-existing html
> without interfering with incapable browsers... but when you have 20
> different browsers(including the same brower but different versions) and
> they all implement the specs differentialy or partially and one is expected
> to conform to them all then its total nuts.
>
>>> I don't know why I have to
>>> nest divs of different position types just to get a relative addressing
>>> in
>>> absolute mode off the current content block.
>>
>> Because that's what the specs say is supposed to happen. Get over it.
>
> Well, I guess I haven't got that far in the spec(at the start of
> positioning). I'm sure the semantics of positioning for css could have been
> designed a bit better. .NET has an excellent methodology for positioning
> that CSS could take a few lessons from.
>
>>
>>> crap... in IE the shifting screws it up.
>>
>> Welcome to the wonderful world of IE bugs.
>> http://www.positioniseverything.net/explorer.html
>
> Which is a complete turn off. I'm suppose to write code that is compatible
> for some browser that is a piece of crap... and not only that, theres about
> 6 of them(IE 3 - IE7). IE7 looks pretty good for the most part and if thats
> all I had to deal with then it wouldn't be so bad.
>
> What I'm actually going to do is just use php to strip all the css code from
> the html if its IE 6 or lower and be done with it. If the user really wants
> to see the graphics then can upgrade to better browser.
>
> Jon
Jon me again. As an old programmer who's written so many different version
of COBOL *any* discusssion about standardization of languages us a real
joke. ((BTW, I also write in several version of BASIC, FORTRAN, C and have
had some very enjoyable eperiences copnverting from one to the other, but
that's an aside.))
First: and I really think this has been pointed out endlessly in this
newsgroup HTML / CSS are not languages - not in the sense that you and I
would think of a programming language at all. I'll get called down for my
loose terms, but they describe a web page and then suggest how the browser
is to implement it - *NO* language I know of reaches to this level of
'suggestion'. In any language it's easy enough to say 'turn on the pixel
at xx,yy and when intrpreted or compiled the result will be (if the
computer gods are willing) that the pixel at xx,yy is lit up in some
fashion. That, though, makes several assumptions that we cannot make on
the web - is the screen wide/long enough to have a pixel at that location,
is there a screen (remember we define for 'read' systems here as well), is
there a pixel to turn on?
Secondly, given that you can program - this is *NOT* programming! When I
write a business system I have *all* the constraints in place before I set
pen to coding pad (or at least hope I do) which is something no one can do
here - none of know definitively how our 'page' is going to be interpreted
because there are just way too many possible pieces of equipment on which
it can be displayed.
Lastly, I know the learning curve for almost any language can be extreme -
if you're not willing to extend that same intenseness to learning how to
'code' a web page then my suggestion would be to let someone else do it for
you.
--
//al
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|