7 ms·
>At the cost of a lot of flexibility. Most people, when faced with a change in design like this, simply reorder their HTML. So perhaps "demand" was hyperbole, b
by iroboto 18y ago
>At the cost of a lot of flexibility. Most people, when faced with a change in design like this, simply reorder their HTML. So perhaps "demand" was hyperbole, but CSS does still push developers to rewrite their HTML when design changes happen.
I don't doubt that cost/time is a factor. As programmers, we would all love to do without the additional overhead of coding practices, and for an unlimited number of reasons.
I realize that css isn't the best language in the world. But if it was intuitive to write css forwards and backwards regardless of document flow -- this wouldn't be a discussion topic. The question is the amount of time invested to learn it.
>The container is providing a hook for layout information that the body tag cannot. For instance, if I wanted the body background color to be blue and the container's background to be white. Also, if you want your content to be restricted in width, it's a lot easier to wrap it with a div than deal with the lack of the > operator in IE 6.
This is true. I was looking purely from layout perspective, but yea, body bleeds background-color and image everywhere regardless of limiting the width.
>Just to be clear, I think that "bad HTML" is pretty much the only practical way to go right now. So, I don't have a problem with the way CSS Zen Garden uses wrappers, nor do I have a problem with the wrappers in this blog post. But you are criticizing one and making excuses for the other.
Practical -- yes I don't disagree. With the way browsers interpret things differently, it's just about the only way you can get compatibility across the board.
Though you are right that I criticizing one and making excuses for the other: at least one follows a clear stated goal -- html describes the content, css draws the presentation. Provided items are added to make do with incompatibility issues, but at least at the core we can see that HTML is purely being used to describe the content. Allowing _enough_ separation required for programmers to be nearly clueless of a designer's job.
The other has no such goal; creating a massive grey area between the programmers and the designers.
- chairface 18y ago> I realize that css isn't the best language in the world. But if it was intuitive to write css forwards and backwards regardless of document flow -- this wouldn't be a discussion topic. The question is the amount of time invested to learn it. Quite right. The argument, as I see it, is that it's much more practical to use the best cross-platform tool for the job, which in many cases is tables and not CSS. He's arguing that it's not worth the time. > at least one follows a clear stated goal -- html describes the content, css draws the presentation. This isn't even close to CSS Zen Garden's stated goal. Its goal is to show what is possible to do using CSS. It's goal is to be "A demonstration of what can be accomplished visually through CSS-based design." There's nothing about content/presentation separation anywhere on the site. > but at least at the core we can see that HTML is purely being used to describe the content That's certainly not what I see at all, especially at CSS Zen Garden, if that's what you're still referring to here. > Allowing _enough_ separation required for programmers to be nearly clueless of a designer's job. If you mean programmer == HTML, and designer == CSS, then this is simply wrong.
- iroboto 18y agoProgrammer == backend html // designer = AI/PS/CSS cutter, and css writer When I view source csszengarden this is what I see: <div id="intro"> <div id="pageHeader"> <h1> <h2><acronym> <div id="quickSummary"> <p class="p1"><acronym> <p class="p2"> <div id="premable"> <h3> <p class="p1"> <p class="p2"> <p class="p3"> <div id="supportingText"> etc etc. And it goes on. All I see are information grouped by content. The ids, and class tags describe the information. The paragraphs are ordered p1,p2,p3, because for them to make sense they have to be in that order. Page header, quick summary and preamble are all items that belong to an introduction. I think it's great.
- chairface 18y agoIn the source of csszengarden, do you also see this > There are more classes and extraneous tags than needed, and in a real world situation, it's more likely that it would be much leaner. and this > <!--extra div for flexibility - this list will probably be the trickiest spot you'll deal with --> <div id="linkList2"> and this > <!-- These extra divs/spans may be used as catch-alls to add extra imagery. --> <!-- Add a background image to each and use width and height to control sizing, place with absolute positioning --> <div id="extraDiv1"><span></span></div><div id="extraDiv2"><span></span></div><div id="extraDiv3"><span></span></div> <div id="extraDiv4"><span></span></div><div id="extraDiv5"><span></span></div><div id="extraDiv6"><span></span></div> The HTML guy could not be "nearly clueless" about the designer's needs if CSS Zen Garden's flexibility is what you're looking for.
- iroboto 18y agoSure I see it. But your whole argument is on the basis points of 2 commented divs? <!-- These extra divs/spans may be used as catch-alls to add extra imagery. --> Add extra imagery -- it's posted at the bottom and away from the content. It's not like it's messing with what the programmer needs to develop. You could have easily have removed those tags and only the designs that decided to take use of them would get hurt -- but it is optional, not a requirement. <!--extra div for flexibility - this list will probably be the trickiest spot you'll deal with --> I thought we discussed that browsers incompatibilities are the reason for this. The core of the content is listed at the top of the HTML page which is organized properly. TBH: I would hardly call this level of adding extra markup anywhere close to other HTML where the presentation is completely ingrained.