4 ms·
Bollocks! Not only the author has not had a good look at both the historical context of HTML and CSS but has also failed to understand the technologies behind
by yannis 17y ago
Bollocks!
Not only the author has not had a good look at both the historical context of HTML and CSS but has also failed to understand the technologies behind the success of the web.
HTML is a mark-up language for documents. Its simplicity has enabled the spread of the web. In addition it provided a means for some semantic marking of documents through tagging. It was not meant to be a graphical language (see SVG for that!) When it came out there were actually no browsers and most computers were still displaying graphics with herculer cards.
Once microcomputer technology caught up a bit, fancier documents and graphics started appearing and HTML still coped. It still copes even with fancy web applications. In the meantime computer languages appeared and disappeared, desktop software morphed from DOS to Windows 7.
CSS was the answer to presentational issues. It got limitations yes and it gives people difficulties, but so Haskell for me but I never tried to blame my own deficiencies to a 'badly designed' language. Yes CSS does not provide for rounded corners, but it does allow you to display the same content for print, handheld devices, auditory devices as well as feel the text in braille!
Most important this separation enables easier indexing of web pages which is next to impossible to index with graphical based systems.
- joe_the_user 17y agoRounded corners are the single biggest headache in HTML+CSS. There is nothing else that's commonly designed and as big a headache. Rounded corners are a bit cheesy anyway. Look at Hacker news, see any rounded corners? Eventually, the standard will go to arbitrary inline vector graphics and everyone will be happy and the most horribly designed pages imaginable will be inflicted on us.
- PHP-TROLL 17y agoBollocks to your bollocks. You're reading comprehension must be very low. "HTML is a mark-up language for documents. Its simplicity has enabled the spread of the web. In addition it provided a means for some semantic marking BLAH BLAH BLAH." You are repeating what he says in his blog. Maybe you read the wrong blog? "CSS was the answer to presentational issues." Yes, but it's not a good answer. It is possible to criticize something not as reflection of a person's own deficiencies, but because it is works poorly. "Most important this separation enables easier indexing of web pages which is next to impossible to index with graphical based systems." He never said the separation of content and layout is bad. He said they way that it is implemented is "POOP" Any sane person is for the seperation of content and layout.
- yannis 17y agoIf you think that it works poorly you are welcome to improve it:) The testimony of the web provides the answer to the fact that HTML and CSS works. You can read Håkon Wium Lie's PhD thesis as to the reasoning behind CSS. http://people.opera.com/howcome/2006/phd/ http://people.opera.com/howcome/2006/phd/ and make your own mind if it is POOP or not. IMHO it has a very good basis and also provides an architecture for improvements. Pretty much similar to Knuth's TeX. I personally find no difficulty in using CSS! I think it is the smallest of the head-aches that a web developer faces. really a non-issue.