Posted by 1001 Webs on 11/10/07 10:39

On Nov 9, 5:36 pm, "Jonathan N. Little" <lws4...@centralva.net> wrote:
> Ed Jensen wrote:
> > dorayme <doraymeRidT...@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
> >> Now one more question. What would you imagine about the
> >> appropriateness and quality of the tools if IE could be taken out
> >> of the picture?
>
> > I'm not really qualified to answer that question for several reasons.
>
> > First, I'm not really very familiar with any of the tools on the
> > market. The little HTML/CSS/JavaScript that I've written was created
> > entirely by hand.
>
> The way many of us develop. HTML/CSS/JavaScript are the tools.
>
>
>
> > Second, I'm not a professional web developer, so I'm not necessarily
> > familiar with best practices (i.e., the "right way" to do things).
>
> > That's not to say I'm entirely unfamiliar with web development. My
> > wife runs a small business, and I maintain a small web site for her.
>
> > I tried doing things the Ivory Tower way (i.e., Separate content and
> > layout!, Tables are for tabular data only!, etc.), but I found the
> > experience time consuming and frustrating beyond any measure of good
> > sense.
>
> Maybe because you don't know your tools: HTML/CSS/JavaScript Knowledge
> is power. Why would you expect to "build a house" when you knew nothing
> about carpentry? And expect to be successful? Don't want to learn, then
> do what people do when they what a house but don't want to invest in
> learning carpentry, hire a carpenter.

Even the best "carpenters" will tell you that there's something
intrinsically wrong with CSS implementation.
There are too many tools designed for the same purpose, for example
font-sizing, and some of them are clearly defective.
I completely agree with the poster's opinion that CSS can be " time
consuming and frustrating beyond any measure of good sense."

[Back to original message]