Re: IE 6 and css

> > OK, seeing in the standard, I can see that it is legal ... but that
> doesn't
> > mean it should be used :)  Frankly, I think it adds an unnecessary
> level of
> > complexity - if one of my students were to ask me about it, I'd now be
> able
> > to knowledgably say "that's valid, but avoid it".
>
> Actually, you should be encouraging this, because it is a simpler
> notation, and because most of these colors are going to be among the 216
> web safe colors (as long as they use 0, 3, 6, 9, C, or F).
>  -Ryan

Of course, it is a matter of opinion ... I think just from the discussions
we've seen here today on this topic would demonstrate that it is one of the
lesser known features of CSS, this shorthand.  One of the things I encourage
my students to do is to be concise, but not at the expense of clarity.

Now, I don't teach an HTML class, so this point would likely never come up,
except perhaps in one of the inevitable asides that creep into lecture.  But
in my programming class Monday I spoke to the students about recursive
functions, and went through an example of how one would work.  After all
that, a student said "can't you do all that with loops and have it be much
less confusing?"  Ah, when the light shines through, it is gratifying.
Exactly my point, I said.  Here is a feature of a language that can be quite
useful, but can also make your code difficult to follow.

Having #111 or #444 mean #111111 or #444444 might seem like a good idea to
some, and for those, more power to you.  To me, and I suspect an unheard
mass out there, it is a triviality, best left unused.  If you mean #111111,
say #111111, and everyone will know what you mean.

-Steve

HWG hwg-techniques mailing list archives, maintained by Webmasters @ IWA