3 ms·

> I think you have the causality backwards though. Tables were used for layout before CSS existed. When CSS was created, it was designed to mimic exactly what w

by jonahx 11y ago

> I think you have the causality backwards though. Tables were used for layout before CSS existed. When CSS was created, it was designed to mimic exactly what was possible to do in HTML That's exactly what I said. I think the difference is in our interpretation of that causality: you see it as an intentional concession in the name of backwards compatibility; I see it as a failure of imagination.

olavk 11y ago
Or maybe the ability to imagine the fate of CSS if it wasn't backwards compatible with the HTML layout model :) That said, I look forward to when CSS3 flexbox becomes widely supported. Still I'm happy that we at least don't need presentational HTML anymore.
- jonahx 11y ago
  > Or maybe the ability to imagine the fate of CSS if it wasn't backwards compatible with the HTML layout model :) You seem to be misinterpreting my arguments -- I'll assume not deliberately. They could have easily provided the same facilities for backwards compatibility of table behavior while also providing clearly-named and usable methods for doing things as basic as centering. Is your position that CSS is a thoughtfully, well-designed system for presentation, and that the complaints of 95% of professionals web developers are the result of their own misunderstanding of it? Can you imagine taking such a position on user complaints as the CTO of a private software company?
  - olavk 11y ago
    CSS does provide both - the table model from CSS2 provides parity with HTML tables, the flexbox model in CSS3 provides an easy way to center blocks and other nice flexible layout features. I do believe most complaints about CSS is really complaints about missing and buggy implementations in browsers. For example for years I have seen people complain that CSS is not as powerful and simple as html tables, when the issue really was that Internet Explorer didn't support the display:table properties from CSS2, which meant you either had to use hacks with floats (which was never designed for this) or use html tables. This gave CSS a bad rep, when it really was IE that was to blame.

by jonahx 11y ago

olavk 11y ago

Or maybe the ability to imagine the fate of CSS if it wasn't backwards compatible with the HTML layout model :) That said, I look forward to when CSS3 flexbox becomes widely supported. Still I'm happy that we at least don't need presentational HTML anymore.

jonahx 11y ago
> Or maybe the ability to imagine the fate of CSS if it wasn't backwards compatible with the HTML layout model :) You seem to be misinterpreting my arguments -- I'll assume not deliberately. They could have easily provided the same facilities for backwards compatibility of table behavior while also providing clearly-named and usable methods for doing things as basic as centering. Is your position that CSS is a thoughtfully, well-designed system for presentation, and that the complaints of 95% of professionals web developers are the result of their own misunderstanding of it? Can you imagine taking such a position on user complaints as the CTO of a private software company?
- olavk 11y ago
  CSS does provide both - the table model from CSS2 provides parity with HTML tables, the flexbox model in CSS3 provides an easy way to center blocks and other nice flexible layout features. I do believe most complaints about CSS is really complaints about missing and buggy implementations in browsers. For example for years I have seen people complain that CSS is not as powerful and simple as html tables, when the issue really was that Internet Explorer didn't support the display:table properties from CSS2, which meant you either had to use hacks with floats (which was never designed for this) or use html tables. This gave CSS a bad rep, when it really was IE that was to blame.