Re: Re; How to remove . . .<linked style sheets?>

Captain,

> Second, and this really is a question, not a smart a**ed wise crack: Isn't
> there still some *major* browser support issues for "linked" style sheets?

I don't know of any.  Externally linked .css has been supported since
Netscape 4.x and I.E. 5.x which covers almost everyone.  If someone is using
AOL 3.0 or Netscape 2  -  I am not too worried about them.  We can't cover
everyone all the time.  Besides, they still get the data, they just see it
at their default font in black, rather than in Helvetica in Navy.  But
external style sheets make a lot more sense to me.

1. It gets read once and cached so it saves loading time on later web pages

2. I change one file rather than the whole website.  One of my websites is
running 1300 pages.  Don't want to hand code an update on THAT puppy.

3. Style info is all there in one place.

> *At this point in time* based on this issue, isn't it "better" (though
> admittedly more work) to include these style declarations in each
> individual document?

 The big  selling point was that because of the external and cascading
nature of CSS, it was supposed to be easier to change the look of a website
than it was to change your socks.

  My understanding was that you could use it internally too, but that would
be because you wanted something special for that wegpage.  They even set up
a three tier hirarchy for this reason.  Internal CSS in the HEAD and
localized CSS at the text level were each higher in importance or structure
than external sheets.

  i.e. an internal style would overwrite the external sheet for that
particular element, class or id in the Document Object Model.  If there was
a problem between two styles as in multiple external styles, that last one
would be chosen.

  If I had to use it internally in each file, I might as well have stayed
with HTML 3.2 and the old <.FONT> tag way of doing things.  Why bother?

Hmmm....    What I see is, that there was not full implimentation for all of
CSS1 or CSS2.  That's very true. Positioning is an area that is wierd across
browsers.  Basic font support seems good as long as you use pixels seems to
be pretty good.

> Am I behind the curve . . . again?

I am not sure.  You did your research, so I have no idea where you found
what you found.  Do you know of any popular browsers that don't support it?
I have no idea where you could look for that.  A quick look at
cnet.builder.com and webreference.com doesn't tell me.

I have been using it for a year and a half and nobody has complained yet.  I
also use CSS1 conservatively.  That may be part of the key.  No layers, no
positioning.  Keep it simple.

Paul Wilson
webguroo(at)tampabay.rr.com

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