JAAulde
yum yum yum yum yum
Premium,MVM
join:2001-05-09
Hagerstown, MD
1 edit | reply to deepblackmag
Re: Dvorak embarrasses himself on CSS instead of Macs this time
said by deepblackmag  :Those responses dont change the fact that CSS sites are a pain in the ass for users. Try selecting text on half the sites that heavily rely on css and you will end up selecting half the page, or nothing at all. CSS is a pox on the web. Can't say that any CSS site (coded by me or anyone else) has given me any real fit. But I am pretty good at positioning the mouse where I need it... 
But even if that were an issue--that text selecting problem, does that one little glitch cause the whole technology to be problematic or cause a whole site to be un-usable (or a pain in the ass as you put it)? Of course not. Show me a bug free technology...
Furthermore, if there really is a text selecting issue (which as I said I have not seen), it isn't the fault of the technology. It is the fault of the vendor who is mis-implementing the technology. Do you really think the individuals who wrote the CSS standard said, "I know, let's add in a messed up version of text selection!" Get real.
--
"There's a war going on insdie me--the good fightin' against the evil. But I thank God for redemption."
--Johnny Cash
|
|
deepblackmag
join:2004-12-27
00000
| The vendors each follow the same specification and all come to different conclusions. These are the same exact coders that are capable of following http, ftp, and dozens of other protocol specifications, so why the discrepancies here? Why so many of them in one place? The standard is clearly flawed, and should be scrapped in favor of a new standard properly outlined with CONTRETE EXAMPLES provided (YES that means you bums at the w3c need to start CODING what your preaching) instead of just arguing about policy. |
|
Mospaw
D O N E
Hawaiian Jellyfish
join:2001-01-08
The Pacific
 ·Cox HSI
Host:
Road Warriors, Not..
All Things Macintosh
Automotive
| I sense just a bit of anger here. Bums? Why so vitriolic?
FTP is a relatively simple protocol. You can read and understand it in a day or two. The same with HTTP and likely "dozens of other protocols". There is no "fudge factor". They are protocols for allowing machines to speak to each other in narrowly defined circumstances.
CSS is an entirely different animal. By its very nature, it's more complex. It covers a vast array of possible formats, designs, tastes and even, no pun intended, styles. Comparing FTP to CSS (standardized or not) is like comparing a door handle to a jet engine.
I'm not saying that the CSS standard is perfect. Written into it is room for interpretation. And as you have so elegantly pointed out, different vendors interpret things differently. I still don't see how this is a problem with the technology. I call it flexibility.
Rather than attacking things on a wholesale level due to a few minor deficiencies, your energies would be better spent actually trying to improve that's wrong or coming up with a better solution.
So, since CSS is so bad, so worthless, so utterly beyond repair, what's better for the same task? Or what are you doing to improve it? |
|
