RE: Using font and tables vs. css and absolute positioning - was : JavaScript nonsense

by "Captain F.M. O'Lary" <ctfuzzy(at)canopy.net>

 Date:  Fri, 14 Dec 2001 09:58:53 -0500
 To:  "Thomas Rumley" <redo4you(at)yahoo.com>,
"HWG Basics" <hwg-basics(at)hwg.org>
 References:  home
  todo: View Thread, Original
At 11:38 AM 12/14/01 , Thomas Rumley wrote:
>Using both the font tag and tables in addition to css is probably a good
>idea.


Hey Thomas.

May I ask . . . what non-transitional DTD allows this?


>
>Microsoft's Internet Explorer does not adhere to the css standard
>completely. And as far as that goes neither does Netscape. As a result your
>page may not display the same way you intend it to in either browser.  But
>for those browser(s) that even have a partial understanding with css, you'll
>find that you're page does display better than without css.


I hate to say it but . . you know me:

On the other hand, if you code the file to a non-transitional standard you
can be *more than* reasonably sure it will display reliably and predictably
on virtually ANY browser/OS that tries to interact with the file.


>
>FONT  is a very useful tag. As it allows you to set the color, size, and
>font type; I would argue that it is the most useful tag within the HTML
>language. It has been deprecated by the W3C however. What this means is that
>the standards organization has officially suggested that web authors do not
>use the tag. Instead they are leaning hard in favor of css and supposedly
>will remove the font tag entirely from the standard at some point in the
>future.

Like in 4.X strict. " Font " is formally toast - no?

The ' saving grace ' is that being a part of a . . . here we go again . .
non-transitional DTD, we can rest assured, it will still be around - and
work - and validate - provided the appropriate DTD is used to identify the
markup - for a long time to come.

>
>Even if font is removed from the standard, it will probably still have
>support in your favorite browser. Try using the <BLINK> tag in Netscape and
>you'll still see the text turning on and off. An old tag that no one
>supposedly likes and it's still supported.


I ~wish~ I could argue with that, but I can't ;-(.


>
>Keep the JavaScript windows. They'll work fine whether css does take over
>the display or not.

Arrrggghhhhhh. JavaScript. Nothing personal Tom, don't go there. But . . .
Aaarrrggghhhh. I *hate* JavaScript.

No it is not because it's JavaScript. It is because of the misunderstanding
surrounding it.

Look.

There are some _____ real sharp ____  JS programmers here on this list, ask
them if this isn't the truth:

"JavaScript CAN really screw up your machine."

Thus my problem. Just this morning, I saw a post to this very list on
another topic saying 'this' canned editor and 'that' canned editor needs
their code fixed (HTML) before the page "works ok". They go right on two
lines later to say (to paraphrase) "do use the JavaScript the editor creates".

WAIT A MINUTE !!!!!!

If the darned editor can't make something as simple as HTML right, what in
the hell (sorry about that) makes ~anyone~ think the JS is  . . . good . .
. much less safe for everyone everywhere ?!?!?!?!?!?!?!

It defies all common sense and logic to make such assumptions - in my
simple mind!! In my own personal web browsing experience - I'm POSITIVE it
is a very, very, very bad assumption.

~that~ is the problem I have with JS; some folks think you can substitute
mouse buttons for technical competence.

:-)
Fuzzy.
<rant ram-jet at 70%>
______________________________________________________________
Captain F.M. O'Lary
ctfuzzy(at)canopy.net
"With computers, every morning is the dawn of a new error. "
------------------------------------------------------------------

HTML: hwg-basics mailing list archives, maintained by Webmasters @ IWA