Re: invisible border (was background problems in Netscape 4.7

I knew from past post you also work with it, and I figured out the
frustration part...as you say, it's a familiar feeling...:).
Mostly, I wanted to shed a little calm on the CSS/no-CSS issue, I
guess.  I've seen people here indicate they are new to the use of
CSS and are a bit confused by the options and
controversy...thought it should be clear to them, especially, that
there are many shades of gray to the issue.

Each shade defined, of course, in a style sheet...:)

D

----- Original Message -----
From: "Captain F.M. O'Lary" <ctfuzzy(at)canopy.net>

Darrell,

Halejulia!!

Common sense, Looking to the future while keeping an eye on the
past,
learning now what is (most likely) just around the corner. Your
post
constitutes a genuine major contribution to the list Darrell -
THANKS!!

I know you all are never going to believe this . . . . but . . . I
play
with CSS too!

what prompted my comment(s) were not so much *exactly* the content
of that
message, it was more the recent frustration I have experienced
while
"practicing" CSS.

You know, I'm sure you CSS folks have experienced it . . . you
write the
code, you "know" it's right, the browser stats you can find *say*
(~that~
part of the) CSS works . . . but it doesn't _really_.

You wind up spending tooooooooo much time trying to debug code,
that
actually is not wrong AT ALL only to learn the browser stat folks
were
actually wrong about what the browser will support.

'drives me right out of my tiny mind.

:-(
Fuzzy.


At 09:09 AM 3/19/01 -0500, Darrell King wrote:
>Actually, Fuzzy, the term 'CSS' seems a bit vague...:).  Are you
>SURE that setting font sizes using CSS will not show up in the
>vast majority of browsers?  Or perhaps you are simply referring
to
>those aspects of CSS that are not yet widely supported...?  It
>makes sense to me, for instance, to use font formatting and
>general font/background color setting using CSS, even if I can't
>reliably use it to position page many block-level document
>components yet.
>
>3.2 is certainly more reliable for block-level stuff, and we
still
>have to use tables to get what we want, but I am afraid there are
>two excellent reasons to spend hours on CSS work:
>
>1) It does make the docs cleaner and lighter when used to handle
>the more widely supported formatting, such as font size,
>background color, font color and a few other things.  Of course
>the pages don't look identical in different browsers...they
won't.
>Opera is a different software company than Microsoft, and so they
>can interpret things a bit differently (although, hopefully, not
>*radically* differently!)...ever seen the difference in the way a
>spreadsheet displays from Excel to Star Office?  Additionally, it
>is quite acceptable to use gracefully degrading designs to handle
>situations where 85% of one's audience will see the intended
>display...my criteria for making the judgment revolves around
>whether the content is accessible.  If I can use CSS, get the
>effect I want in the vast majority of displays and still have the
>information available with minor display differences in something
>old like  NN4, then it works for me...:).
>
>2) Style sheets will continue (MHO) making inroads in the
>community and the time spent now learning them will pay off.  Of
>course, it may not be all that useful in 2 years to know fixes to
>make a document display right in NN4, but researching all these
>things while learning CSS now can't help but make the designer
>more involved with he learning process...
>
>I agree that you have a good point considering the support for
3.2
>vs. the turmoil of CSS, but let's not throw the baby out with the
>bathwater.  Just switching to CSS for basic formatting has
>lightened our pages considerably as well as easing maintenance.
>There are many current uses one can safely put CSS to.
>
>D

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