Posted by Michael Laplante on 12/17/61 11:47

"Jonathan N. Little" <lws4art@centralva.net> wrote in message
news:44579f95$0$3693$cb0e7fc6@news.centralva.net...

> I disagree, things broke horribly in the 4x browser age with proprietary
> markup. CSS works quite well on the whole, most times it just improperly
> applied.

I haven't found a CSS site anywhere that doesn't "break" -- and that
includes those belonging to the CSS "black belts" here. The only ones that
don't are those that simply mimic multi-column tables, and even many of
those don't work properly.

That's why I laughed at some of the initial comments to my ongoing printing
issue. The people who fancy themselves good at CSS take one look, grunt a
vague comment or two, say "your site goes wonky when i change window or font
size, it's badly designed." I can write them off as "experts" immediately
since they seem to be unaware that most CSS sites break. I challenge them to
show me their sites -- they usually stop flapping their lips at that point.
(Challenge still stands BTW. . .) Or, they show me these embarrassingly
simple sites that could just as easily have been designed with a single row,
multi-column table. Sorry, not impressed. Go help someone else.

My site may be badly designed because of bad or inefficient coding (probably
true), but the fact it breaks or doesn't validate doesn't mean anything by
itself.

The CSS black belts -- we all know who they are -- generally don't blindly
defend CSS. They acknowledge the limitations of CSS but are often able to
work around those limitations. Their response are usually backed up with
examples, code bits or meaningful discussion of the bad code. (And if one of
them could solve my print issue, I would bow down in the bright glow of
their brilliance. . .)

Not slagging CSS at all -- you can do some amazing visual stuff with it
otherwise not possible in HTML. That's why I'm here for help. But it's far,
far from perfect. . .

M

[Back to original message]