Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter


Forgot your password?
The Internet

Apple, Opera, and Mozilla Push For HTML5 384

foo fighter writes "The World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) has been slumbering the past several years: HTML was last updated in 1999, XHTML was last updated in 2002, and no one is taking seriously their largely incompatible work on 'next-generation' XHTML or 'modularized' XHTML. Both HTML and XHTML are in sorry need of removing deprecated items while being updated to reflect the current practices of web and browser developers and remaining compatible with legacy Recommendations. The much more open and transparent WHATWG (Web Hypertext Application Technology Working Group), formed in 2004 to address this problem, and has been hard at work on developing a draft spec for HTML5 to update and replace legacy versions of both HTML and XHTML. The quality of this work has reached the point that Apple, Opera, and Mozilla have requested the adoption of HTML5 as the new 'W3C Recommendation' for Web development."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Apple, Opera, and Mozilla Push For HTML5

Comments Filter:
  • by ackthpt ( 218170 ) * on Thursday April 12, 2007 @12:31PM (#18703765) Homepage Journal

    OK, I'm a curmudgeon. There, happy?

    I still design pages using HTML 3.2 standard. Life was happy when pages were small and simple. I'm very put-off by the way HTML now can do things formerly reserved for javascript. Further, people no longer appear interested in the size of the footprint their pages make and the bandwidth necessary to download them.

    We rail away at Microsoft and anyone else who adds bloat to software, but the web is now plagued by page bloat and overly clever designs which render poorly at times, take over the browser and sometimes crash it. Behaviour is becomming terrible, but as pages are done by authors who do not really care, so long as it looks like it should and does the basics, they care not what a wreck have created.

    Don't even get me started on people whose home page is some massive flash object.

    "Hi, we assume you have the latest browser and all the plugins!"

  • by jhfry ( 829244 ) on Thursday April 12, 2007 @12:33PM (#18703807)
    I don't see Microsoft on the list of those pushing for it. Any chance that HTML5 is compatible with IE7... or should I say, is IE7 compatible with HTML5... Hell, is IE7 compatible with any web standard?
  • by CastrTroy ( 595695 ) on Thursday April 12, 2007 @12:34PM (#18703813) Homepage
    And meanwhile in IE Land, we're still trying to get proper CSS Support. It will always come down to the lowest common denominator, especially when the LCD is the most popular browser. Nobody is going to code HTML 5 pages when the most popular browser doesn't support them. It's great that MS has finally made some headway with IE 7, but if they wait another 5 years until their next major release, then they are going to be even further behind. While all the other browsers are working on CSS3 and HTML5, MS is still working on CSS2 and HTML4.
  • by aicrules ( 819392 ) on Thursday April 12, 2007 @12:35PM (#18703833)
    No one is compatible with HTML5.
  • by oliverthered ( 187439 ) <oliverthered&hotmail,com> on Thursday April 12, 2007 @12:40PM (#18703945) Journal
    What we need is an updated version of CSS that lets you do things like reference other elements attributes so that you can create tables and line up things across/down the page. The ability to put different images on the left and right hand sides and top and bottom and all variants off would be great for putting rounded corners on things etc... instead of having to do hacks link putting in extra p tags just for the image.

    HTML is more or less fine, give me a better version of CSS anyday.
  • by drinkypoo ( 153816 ) <> on Thursday April 12, 2007 @12:44PM (#18704019) Homepage Journal
    IMO what we really need in CSS is variables and math. Variables are really key. And to be able to say that the width of an element is n% of the width of another element, even when it is not nested within that elements, is also key - otherwise you have to use javascript for assloads of things. Of course other similar things would be possible. This is absolutely critical. Without it CSS makes life harder in a disturbing number of situations.
  • by Bogtha ( 906264 ) on Thursday April 12, 2007 @12:48PM (#18704091)

    I actually find things like "normal <B>bold <I>bold italic</B> italic</I> normal" useful

    I hate to break it to you, but that's not HTML 4.01 Transitional either. No version of HTML has permitted overlapping elements in the way that you describe. You are merely exploiting error handling that is fairly common amongst web browsers.

  • A bit premature? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by DragonWriter ( 970822 ) on Thursday April 12, 2007 @12:48PM (#18704097)
    Maybe its just me, but I think its a good sign that a proposed spec isn't ready for adoption when it contains this warning on one of its elements (see 5.4.1 The UndoManager interface):

    This API sucks. Seriously. It's a terrible API. Really bad. I hate it.
    Its also not a good sign when it has sections with a note of the form "Does anyone know enough about $foo to write this section" or "Need to write this section". Certainly I can see a need and utility for something like the Web Applications 1.0/"HTML5" standard, but it certainly doesn't seem ready for adoption as a Recommendation yet.
  • by Billosaur ( 927319 ) * <(wgrother) (at) (> on Thursday April 12, 2007 @12:49PM (#18704107) Journal

    Yes, this incessant pushing of the technology/standards envelope is creating a lot of disjoint, stilted, and otherwise unreadable web sites. It used to be web pages were mainly HTML with a few SSI thrown in for good measure; now they are over-burdened with flashy graphics, tricky menus (god how rollovers are getting out of hand!), and a lack of decent content. I mean, I go to a web site to find information I'm looking for. In the old days, you could do that -- now content is so snarled in meaningless fluff that have the time I have to search the source code just to find what I'm looking for.

  • by mstahl ( 701501 ) <marrrrrk AT gmail DOT com> on Thursday April 12, 2007 @12:52PM (#18704189) Homepage Journal

    Hi there. I'm a web developer/designer. I do flash, too. Good times, right?

    I design and build to the XHTML 1.0 transitional standard, and for some bizarre reason one of my clients still makes me test their pages in IE5. When was the last time you even saw a computer that had IE5 on it?

    Your objections to design I can't really comment on beyond saying I hope you're not referring to any of mine. But your objection to HTML/CSS doing what javascript used to be necessary for? Really? You prefer writing little-stupid javascript functions to just putting a :hover rule in your CSS? Really?

    You, sir, are a rare breed. Hats off to you though; HTML 3.2 is really the only standard the most browsers agree upon (IE6/7 have all those weird box model problems with XHTML 1.0).

  • by Bogtha ( 906264 ) on Thursday April 12, 2007 @12:55PM (#18704251)

    It's like watching people program without a care about optimizing for size or speed. They're paid by the hour, not for the quality of the code.

    Funny, that's how I feel about people who don't use CSS. Seriously, if you are that concerned with the size of pages and bandwidth, like you say in your other comment, then why are you transmitting your style information on every single page load?

  • by richdun ( 672214 ) on Thursday April 12, 2007 @12:56PM (#18704269)
    Some of that is in the CSS3 and further specs, like the advanced layout module, but those are beyond the reach of even the latest versions of FF, Opera, KHTML, etc. at the moment.

    But, really, XHTML 1.1 is a great standard, and instead of moving ahead, let's try to get everyone to use it first. It hasn't been updated in forever (forever in web terms, of course) because the push has been to get everyone to actually use standards, and to get browser support of CSS2 and eventually CSS3 complete across all platforms and engines.

    Just glancing over it, the HTML5 standards up at WHATWG worry me slightly. There seems to be a lot fo presentational/non-structural markup sneaking back in. Not necessarily as obvious as some of the older tags that were dropped in HTML4/XHTML1, but still. We have to keep in mind the separation of powers - XHTML/HTML for markup, CSS for presentation, and DOM for scripting - or things will just get way too complicated again.

    Make things easier and more accessible for the developer/design? Sure. Add presentational content to HTML so he/she doesn't have to learn how to properly use CSS and the DOM? No. Do this, and it'll open the floodgates for everyone (MSFT) to add "special" tags to further "help" the developer/designers. Next think you know we'll be running around with a bunch of "Works best in ..." graphics like its 1998 again (only this time we'll be using PNGs or JPEG2000s instead of GIFs).
  • Horrible (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Zenethian ( 873096 ) <(jgentil) (at) (> on Thursday April 12, 2007 @12:56PM (#18704275) Homepage
    This is horrible. The mess of backwards compatibility on the web, particularly in HTML, is what causes so much "liberal" output from web developers and designers. XHTML took a solid step forward in squashing some of those problems by creating a very rigid set of rules to be followed for document markup. XHTML2 addresses the actual semantics of it. Backwards-compatibility is not always a great thing. Something like XHTML2 promises a clean breakaway from the horrors of HTML. This "HTML5" seeks to make the web even worse off than it already is by providing developers and designers a free ticket to make their code as horrifically nonstandard as possible. Documents should consist of well-formed markup that is easily parsed by both humans and machine alike. From a purist point of view, XHTML is blissful, though it does truly have it's own set of issues. From a realist point of view, there will sadly always be backwards compatibility on the Web, but can we *please* restrict it to software implementation and NOT in standards?! The web browser will always need to support HTML 2, 3.2, 4.0, etc etc (not that they do, but they should...). If someone wishes to code in HTML 3.2 then they should. But the next version of the (X)HTML standard should not promote backward-compatibility. It should move the technology forward instead of accommodating for previous bad practices.
  • Re:microsoft? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by msh104 ( 620136 ) on Thursday April 12, 2007 @12:56PM (#18704277)
    "Fact is if MSFT doesn't make the "standard" MSFT won't support it properly."

    that's exactly why they should be in the standard creation team.
  • by nine-times ( 778537 ) <> on Thursday April 12, 2007 @01:01PM (#18704341) Homepage

    I don't really get your complaint. I mean, I share your annoyance with uselessly flashy pages, and literally Flash-y pages, but what's wrong with refining standards? Many of the updates to HTML have made things cleaner, more precise, and more consistent. Some of the added features have allowed web developers to do more with less code (if you can call HTML "code"). Much of what's added in-- if you don't want to use it, don't use it. But if you have some reason to do something flashy on your site, it's probably better to have it be done in some standard way rather than though some hack or by adding Flash to your page.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 12, 2007 @01:03PM (#18704369)

    Everybody is ignoring XHTML 2.0 because it isn't finished yet.

    I thought it was because it was a pointless and unneeded reformulation of existing standards with no BC?

    XHTML 1.1 is not an option for most developers for one reason in particular: you can't use it with Internet Explorer. Blame Microsoft.

    1.1 is not an option if you want to support UA's that only accept text/html and Lynx will never support application/xhtml+xml. All XHTML1.1 does is modularize version 1.0, most users probably don't even know what that means ;-o

  • by Bogtha ( 906264 ) on Thursday April 12, 2007 @01:14PM (#18704553)

    You prefer writing little-stupid javascript functions to just putting a :hover rule in your CSS?

    I get the impression he's not a professional web designer, so he can just ignore stuff like that entirely.

    HTML 3.2 is really the only standard the most browsers agree upon

    There's a very good reason for that. The W3C were working on HTML 3 when it became apparent that their work was diverging from what browsers understood; browser vendors were adding stuff at a crazy rate while ignoring the HTML 3 work. So the W3C decided to scrap HTML 3 and make a decent description of what browsers understood in HTML 3.2.

    Basically, the reason why "most browsers agree upon HTML 3.2" is because HTML 3.2 was merely rubber-stamping what browsers already did.

    IE6/7 have all those weird box model problems with XHTML 1.0

    There's no such thing as a "box model" in XHTML 1.0. The box model is a feature of CSS.

  • by alienmole ( 15522 ) on Thursday April 12, 2007 @01:22PM (#18704689)
    Here's what I was thinking: ordinary users don't seem to have a problem installing Flash, which is a several MB download, when they're told that they need it to view a site. So if the Gecko ActiveX control does the trick, those of us who are serious about eliminating IE should detect IE visitors and display a page saying that you need to download the Firefox/Gecko control to use the site (or Firefox itself, of course).

    Pretty soon, about as many people who have Flash will also have Firefox running inside IE, and it'll no longer be necessary for many people to cater to IE.
  • by Bogtha ( 906264 ) on Thursday April 12, 2007 @01:35PM (#18704947)

    Hover rules aren't useless eye candy. Hover rules are visual feedback letting you know you are over something clickable. If you move your cursor across a bunch of links, it's immediately obvious which one you are currently over without having to pay attention to precisely where your cursor is. Usability++.

  • by ( 850652 ) on Thursday April 12, 2007 @01:38PM (#18704979) Homepage

    I've tried, I really have, to embrace the Zen garden Juu-Juu of CSS, can you make a simple blog page work in CSS? sure! Can you make an massive website with many different templates and variable width data-areas work in CSS? Yea, if you're a complete lunatic. but you have to get there with hack over hack over hack over hack. Here is the deep dark secret of CSS, it's not designed for layout. It's fantastic for styling, but try doing a Box-model or Float layout and you quickly realizing you're asking CSS to do things it wasn't intended to do, and it simply does not break gracefully the way a simple table layout does (You know floats were originally intended for pictures, not layout areas). So while I respect the purity of a CSS for style, HTML for content concept, in practice CSS is just as much of a kludge as Table design. I've saved hours of time and reached wider audiences of compatibility by going for a hybrid design, but this breaks the "standards".

    IMO, standards should follow simple elegant solutions, a hundred lines of CSS browser compatibility code and float hacks is far from an elegant solution. PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE give designers a proper layout language!!

  • by Kelson ( 129150 ) * on Thursday April 12, 2007 @01:50PM (#18705209) Homepage Journal

    Why not create a tag called "grid" that acts like a table, but is designed for page layout? Most graphic designers use grids, and it would really help web design as a whole if something like that existed for us.
    Because this would make sense, and help web designers/developers actually do what they've been doing all along. Its just the people in the business of writing the spec, have something different envisioned.

    Not really. If it is functionally equivalent to TABLE, then it's redundant markup (like the old MENU and DIR list types, which were in practice equivalent to UL). It'll also have exactly the same shortcomings that table-based layouts have (particularly: mixing presentation in your structure, and limits on scalability, particularly going down to small devices like phones). The only thing that will distinguish it from TABLE is that parsers will know not to interpret it as tabular data. You may as well add a "NOTDATA" attribute to TABLE.

    The only designers it will benefit are those who follow the "don't use tables" mantra as received wisdom, rather than understanding the reasons behind it. It's just like people who try to use CSS to imitate a table layout in order to present actual tables, because they've heard "tables are bad, use CSS instead" instead of "tables as layout lead to a number of problems with can be avoided by using CSS instead"

  • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 12, 2007 @02:01PM (#18705397)

    Maybe I'm missing something very important but using HTML 5 to describe HTML 5 seems _stupid_ to me. Like learning an adult French using only French.
    Obviously, it was also stupid to think that a teacher could "learn" you English using only English. ;)

    Incidentally, we call teaching someone a foreign language by using nothing but that language "immersion". While it's certainly not the most gentle method in terms of initial learning curve, it has been demonstrated time and again to be among the best methods. It works on adults to. If you move to a country without knowing the language, the desire to stay alive (and eat!) tends to be a very strong motivator for accelerating the learning process.

    (Compiling the source of a compiler with the compiler itself is a mark of maturity. Writing a specification in itself doesn't seem in any way outlandish.)
  • by EugeneK ( 50783 ) on Thursday April 12, 2007 @02:14PM (#18705611) Homepage Journal
    Way to miss the parent's point! His point was exactly that; that if you use CSS you don't need to send the styling info with every page load.
  • Ugh... (Score:2, Insightful)

    by psykocrime ( 61037 ) <mindcrime@cp p h a c k e r . c o .uk> on Thursday April 12, 2007 @02:32PM (#18705905) Homepage Journal
    Ugh... HTML 5 is the LAST thing the Web needs. That just works to perpetuate mistakes that
    we've been forced to deal with for 15+ years now... and holds back adoption of XML formats
    that are much easier to process and much more amenable to creating a Semantic Web.

    Retire HTML and let's get XHTML2 out the door and get browser support for it... that's what
    the Web needs.
  • WRONG!! (Score:3, Insightful)

    by mabhatter654 ( 561290 ) on Thursday April 12, 2007 @02:33PM (#18705919)
    Any serious team should kick IBM, Adobe, and Microsoft out. Period. Those companies are the ones that wrecked the current W3C specs by bloating them up with "good ideas" from their established products, then not doing good implementations. MS was in meetings for CSS2 and XHTML, way back in 1999 and they have yet to properly support it. The mother of all W3C specs is SVG... the committee bit when Macromedia and Adobe wanted everything + kitchen sink, but the spec is so ambiguous and bloated nobody can implement it.. worse browsers don't implement the SAME features so it's even more pointless.

    I'd like to see JUST browser makers and web designers in on the next specs. I under stand TBL (father of the web) doesn't like the idea of "web apps" over semantic documents, but the case is lost. The biggest thing is that the W3C doesn't actually make a fully useful browser of their own... they should defer to those that DO make browsers and those who design web pages and create a spec that's 100% useful and implemented rather than "pie in the sky".

  • by tuxedokamen ( 464248 ) on Thursday April 12, 2007 @02:37PM (#18705989) Homepage
    While I agree that page layout on the Web is no where near as simple as it should be (I'm doing a webapp right now, and sometimes it really does feel like alchemy), I disagree slightly with your last point. It's vital to listen to advocates for the disabled--particularly the visually impaired and those with motor difficulties--when solidifying standards like this. The whole idea of the web is accessing information, and if a designer takes the easy way out in terms of implementation and leaves huge swaths of people unable to see the content, IMHO they've kind of missed the point entirely. This is, in part, why tables, spacer gifs, etc. are bad, as I understand it (and also, from my own testing): they really play havoc with screen readers, to the point that a page is nearly incomprehensible. And that assumes the screen reader can make enough sense of things to read them at all--if a a page is malformed enough, there's just silence. I'd imagine the situation with braile-output devices and systems for navigating by alternative means are similar.

    Government websites have to be fully accessible according to a government standard (508, I think), but non-government websites certainly don't. And making the argument that the visually impared/those with motor control difficulties make up such a small percentage of the population is not only superfluous, as even ten percent of the total internet population is well over 100,000, and the number of people with alternative access needs will only continue to rise as access proliferates, but outright discriminatory. If the guilding principle of the web is information and communication for all, exclusion isn't an option.
    (I realize I'm not using exact statistics here, but I unfortunately don't have time to look them up right now.)

    For the webapp we're doing, our team is adhering to the Authoring Tool Accessibility Guidelines (ATAG) 1.0 ( This set of guidelines and the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) are perhaps more important than entanglements over HTML5 and such right now, as they're concerned not only with implementation (how a page is programmed), but how it is designed, from the ground up, to be accessable to all. Implementation should flow from this, IMHO.
  • by GigsVT ( 208848 ) on Thursday April 12, 2007 @02:39PM (#18706015) Journal
    You are very correct. CSS gets much more hacky than "legacy" layout if you try to do any significant layout with it.

    I tried to make a simple 3 column table with CSS only. After struggling with that for an hour, I said fuck it, and put an old style table in there. It was much easier.
  • Okay, but.... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Kadin2048 ( 468275 ) <> on Thursday April 12, 2007 @02:42PM (#18706067) Homepage Journal
    Okay, but just to play the devil's advocate here, why should that be part of the page design, and not a feature of the user's reader, perhaps as a configurable option?

    It used to be pretty standard for people to customize their browsers in order to change the text, link, followed-link, background, hightlight, and other colors; why does the page designer necessarily know better than the users themselves what the user wants?

    We've moved a long way over the past few years towards making the browser into a generic 'portal' that simply displays whatever the web developer wants to toss up on it for the user to look at; frankly it's very television-like.

    However, there is a completely different conception of the internet where the pages should be marked up as generally as possible, and the user's browser should then choose how to display the information in a way that's meaningful to the user. It would probably mean that "your Internet" wouldn't look anything like "my Internet," but there's no inherent reason why that's bad. We've grown to treat it as if it is, but that's only because we want the web experience to be like flipping channels on a TV, where your Discovery Channel looks exactly like mine.
  • by lahvak ( 69490 ) on Thursday April 12, 2007 @02:56PM (#18706349) Homepage Journal
    He spent $6k once to make $1.6k a day.
  • by drix ( 4602 ) on Thursday April 12, 2007 @03:14PM (#18706675) Homepage
    Meh. First, you're talking gross. What's his margin on those $1600 worth of orders? If it's "standard" retail, let's say 5%. So $80 bucks a day. Now, how much extra time and effort did it take you, the developer, to support browsers that are almost a decade old and that, by your own admission, affect roughly 2% of the userbase? My guess is at least a couple thousand dollars, unless you adopted a lowest-common-denominator approach, in which case the site must look unappealingly 1997. More importantly, what sort of tradeoffs were you forced to make? Have you studied at all how much business your client is forgoing by not leveraging the current "formatting fanciness"? Here are a couple points to consider.
    1. People like sites that are clean looking and easy to use. Marketing studies have consistently shown that people will pay more for the exact same item from a place that sells it in a more aesthetically pleasing manner. (I'm not saying this can't be done with HTML 3.2 or whatever, but it's much harder.)
    2. Standards-compliant sites that use semantic markup place higher in search engines, netting more impressions and more sales.
    3. Table-based layouts are slow and unresponsive. How many people here remember good old NS 4 sitting there blank-faced, cranking away on the old, complicated table layouts of yore. I do. Responsiveness is huge; people have come to expect it as the rule, not the exception--a marked departure from the dark days of IE5 and NS4.
  • by Bogtha ( 906264 ) on Thursday April 12, 2007 @03:23PM (#18706807)

    Links are immediately obvious in regular HTML pages because they're a different color and usually underlined. Your mouse cursor also changes when it is pointing at them.

    Did you even read my comment? I'm talking about when you are moving through a list of links, like a navbar. Just because the links look like links and your mouse pointer indicates that you are over a link, it doesn't mean you are getting strong visual feedback about exactly which link you are over.

    If you have a bunch of links back to back in such a way that it is difficult to tell where one stops and another ends, then you probably need to redesign your webpage anyway.

    Take a look at your own page. You provide an unstyled list of links at the top. When I put my mouse over the first one and move it down over the list, it's not obvious exactly which one I am over when I am anywhere near the edges. I have to look at the status bar if I want to be sure.

    This is not about funky layouts or designs that scew things up. This is about a totally normal situation — adjacent links — being slightly improved by the appropriate use of visual feedback.

  • by drix ( 4602 ) on Thursday April 12, 2007 @03:24PM (#18706833) Homepage
    I haven't read TFA or even ever heard of HTML 5, but I really hope they get it right this time. Some many things in XHTML and CSS just leave you scratching your head, especially if you come from a print background.
    • Why are columns so hard? Why can't I just write <column>::stuff::</column>? This is like the the most common use case in all web design, and the current implementation completely whiffs.
    • Why do floats suck? Why don't they automagically cause their containing box to expand? I read the explanation for this once, somewhere, but I can't remember it now. And it just seems silly.
    • Why can I only have one background image per block? Or why can't I specify a bunch of "adjoining" images, so I don't have to make five nested div's every time I want to add a drop shadow?
    • Why can't I vertically align things (not just text) in a block? Ugh.

    And so forth. Certain other things that other people have called for, I'm more agnostic about, like built in support for drop shadows and rounded corners, but there'll be no love lost on my part when they finally replace the current standards.
  • by eclectic4 ( 665330 ) on Thursday April 12, 2007 @03:32PM (#18706947)
    "this incessant pushing of the technology/standards envelope is creating a lot of disjoint, stilted, and otherwise unreadable web sites. etc..."

    The technology standards didn't create those websites, the developers did. You seem to be asking to halt technological advancement to save developers from themselves, when it should be the other way around...
  • by businessnerd ( 1009815 ) on Thursday April 12, 2007 @05:05PM (#18708793)
    Probably better to not post the link. From what has been described, I doubt the site could withstand a slashdotting.
  • by BlueStraggler ( 765543 ) on Thursday April 12, 2007 @10:03PM (#18712993)

    doing a decent layout with just HTML requires tables which in the end creates tag-soup because they weren't designed for page layout. CSS eliminates that problem.

    Apparently you haven't actually tried to do real layout with CSS. There's only a small number of basic layouts that actually work, and even those may require ridiculous hacks that exploit browser bugs to hide rules from certain browsers, and use image backgrounds to create the appearance of cells. Google for 3-column page layouts to see the contortions you have to go through to make a basic 3-column layout with one liquid column. And that's a pretty damn trivial layout. Anything more complicated than that and you're in for a world of pain.

    Small wonder then, that everyone seems to have standardized on 2- and 3-column presentation. It's pretty much the most you can do without a Ph.D. in web voodoo. But let's not pretend that this is a holy advance in the world of design. It's the opposite - a set of handcuffs for the designer, for the sake of getting one useful feature (namely, separation of content and design).

    To be fair, I am referring to CSS as it has been implemented, not as it has been designed. There are a ton of fabulous CSS features that address all my complaints. It's just that none of them work out there in the real world.

  • by argent ( 18001 ) <peter&slashdot,2006,taronga,com> on Thursday April 12, 2007 @11:24PM (#18713697) Homepage Journal
    That be the general definition of CSS (for better or worse).

    CSS separates style from content (that's right there in the name, cascading style sheets), it doesn't address layout at all, which is why people using it for layout have to come up with horrible hacks with floats and the like. They're no better than tables, and I'm glad -moz-column-width is ugly and prefixed and not a standard, because it's too damn specialised. Reminds me of ... too bad that wasn't <-mosaic-image ...> so there was a reason to switch to <fig>...</fig>
  • Validation... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by cyclomedia ( 882859 ) on Friday April 13, 2007 @04:33AM (#18715555) Homepage Journal
    And therin lies the problem, the w3c make a big shouty shiney deal out of "validating" HTML and CSS markup in pages - wether or not it actually produces desirable output in the shitty attempts at support by ALL the browser vendors - and not copyrighting the terms "HTML" and "CSS"* and then not allowing browsers to claim to render them unless the BROWSERS ITSELF CONFORM TO THE SPECS

    *yeah i know it's too late for that now but "HTML 5" could be called "WML : Web Markup Language" instead, whilst being new and buzzword-tastic, M$ could not then release a "WML Support Upgrade" for IE7 unless the w3c said so.

    too bloody simple, obviously

In seeking the unattainable, simplicity only gets in the way. -- Epigrams in Programming, ACM SIGPLAN Sept. 1982