Comments on: The Myth of CSS http://alexking.org/blog/2004/03/13/the-myth-of-css Alex King's blog - software, photography, sports, etc. Wed, 10 Mar 2010 18:18:57 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.1 hourly 1 By: Erik Stell » CSS a Myth? I don’t think so… http://alexking.org/blog/2004/03/13/the-myth-of-css/comment-page-1#comment-62672 Erik Stell » CSS a Myth? I don’t think so… Fri, 18 Apr 2008 14:49:27 +0000 http://www.alexking.org/blog/2004/03/13/the-myth-of-css/#comment-62672 [...] at talk about best practices in terms of blog site designs, and happened across this article: The Myth of CSS | alexking.org I’m reading through the 63 comments on Matt’s code is food post and I inevitably got to one [...] [...] at talk about best practices in terms of blog site designs, and happened across this article: The Myth of CSS | alexking.org I’m reading through the 63 comments on Matt’s code is food post and I inevitably got to one [...]

]]> By: Philipp http://alexking.org/blog/2004/03/13/the-myth-of-css/comment-page-1#comment-58903 Philipp Sun, 30 Sep 2007 10:01:39 +0000 http://www.alexking.org/blog/2004/03/13/the-myth-of-css/#comment-58903 I sometimes think, that people are overrating the importance of how the coding of the page looks like and forget the value of good content :O I sometimes think, that people are overrating the importance of how the coding of the page looks like and forget the value of good content :O

]]> By: Azad http://alexking.org/blog/2004/03/13/the-myth-of-css/comment-page-1#comment-8234 Azad Fri, 23 Sep 2005 05:59:58 +0000 http://www.alexking.org/blog/2004/03/13/the-myth-of-css/#comment-8234 Alex, Good to know that you're a XHTML geek (just like me :p) but did you know that XHTML is not just the DOCTYPE, you must also send the MIMEtype as application/xhtml+xml. As for XHTML 1.0, modern browsers read it as XHTML but IE reads it as Text/html. But XHTML 1.1 can't be read as text/html so IE messes things up badly. I suggest using XHTML 1.0 till IE gets full XML support. Alex, Good to know that you’re a XHTML geek (just like me :p) but did you know that XHTML is not just the DOCTYPE, you must also send the MIMEtype as application/xhtml+xml.

As for XHTML 1.0, modern browsers read it as XHTML but IE reads it as Text/html. But XHTML 1.1 can’t be read as text/html so IE messes things up badly. I suggest using XHTML 1.0 till IE gets full XML support.

]]> By: staylor http://alexking.org/blog/2004/03/13/the-myth-of-css/comment-page-1#comment-1813 staylor Fri, 21 May 2004 20:09:30 +0000 http://www.alexking.org/blog/2004/03/13/the-myth-of-css/#comment-1813 I don't know about any of you guys, but I've been seperating my content with presentation for years. I've also been using tables as elements-- pre-built legos-- and placing them in seperate files... include (' whoa.html ') Simple. And it's cached! I don’t know about any of you guys, but I’ve been seperating my content with presentation for years.

I’ve also been using tables as elements– pre-built legos– and placing them in seperate files…

include (‘ whoa.html ‘)

Simple.

And it’s cached!

]]> By: alexking.org: Blog http://alexking.org/blog/2004/03/13/the-myth-of-css/comment-page-1#comment-1412 alexking.org: Blog Tue, 30 Mar 2004 14:40:01 +0000 http://www.alexking.org/blog/2004/03/13/the-myth-of-css/#comment-1412 <strong>The Myth of CSS: Followup</strong> Luke has posted a very thoughtful article inspired by my Myth of CSS post. (Thank you Feedster for making ego searches so easy.) Many of the initial comments and related posts I got were focused on semantic tag meaning and if I was equating DIVs wit... The Myth of CSS: Followup
Luke has posted a very thoughtful article inspired by my Myth of CSS post. (Thank you Feedster for making ego searches so easy.)

Many of the initial comments and related posts I got were focused on semantic tag meaning and if I was equating DIVs wit…

]]> By: Alex http://alexking.org/blog/2004/03/13/the-myth-of-css/comment-page-1#comment-1379 Alex Tue, 23 Mar 2004 23:39:23 +0000 http://www.alexking.org/blog/2004/03/13/the-myth-of-css/#comment-1379 I agree completely - I don't think we should have 100% separation of presentation and content in XHTML - it's still XHTML, not XML. I agree completely – I don’t think we should have 100% separation of presentation and content in XHTML – it’s still XHTML, not XML.

]]> By: François http://alexking.org/blog/2004/03/13/the-myth-of-css/comment-page-1#comment-1378 François Tue, 23 Mar 2004 21:29:17 +0000 http://www.alexking.org/blog/2004/03/13/the-myth-of-css/#comment-1378 I agree HTML pages still contain loads of hacks, the span tag being the most used tag for hacking little effects. I guess this is inevitable and that, anyway, just as when you write in real life, a complete separation of style and content would not be relevant. It is nice to read pragmatic statements, although they always come with provocative titles ;) From France, sincerely. I agree HTML pages still contain loads of hacks, the span tag being the most used tag for hacking little effects.

I guess this is inevitable and that, anyway, just as when you write in real life, a complete separation of style and content would not be relevant.

It is nice to read pragmatic statements, although they always come with provocative titles ;)

From France, sincerely.

]]> By: Blog-Fu http://alexking.org/blog/2004/03/13/the-myth-of-css/comment-page-1#comment-1361 Blog-Fu Mon, 22 Mar 2004 11:52:03 +0000 http://www.alexking.org/blog/2004/03/13/the-myth-of-css/#comment-1361 <strong>The Myth of CSS, and the Response</strong> Alex King posted some thoughts about how using CSS to seperate content and presentation is a farce. A powerful statement. And one I don’t buy for a minute. The ugly truth is this: almost all CSS/XHTML sites have their own... The Myth of CSS, and the Response
Alex King posted some thoughts about how using CSS to seperate content and presentation is a farce. A powerful statement. And one I don’t buy for a minute. The ugly truth is this: almost all CSS/XHTML sites have their own…

]]> By: Joe Grossberg http://alexking.org/blog/2004/03/13/the-myth-of-css/comment-page-1#comment-1346 Joe Grossberg Wed, 17 Mar 2004 22:34:08 +0000 http://www.alexking.org/blog/2004/03/13/the-myth-of-css/#comment-1346 <strong>Myths of Separating Content/Presentation</strong> Short version: we're not there yet, though CSS and XHTML are a step forward. Long version: a rant about meaningless... Myths of Separating Content/Presentation
Short version: we’re not there yet, though CSS and XHTML are a step forward. Long version: a rant about meaningless…

]]> By: Scott Sanders http://alexking.org/blog/2004/03/13/the-myth-of-css/comment-page-1#comment-1329 Scott Sanders Tue, 16 Mar 2004 16:59:37 +0000 http://www.alexking.org/blog/2004/03/13/the-myth-of-css/#comment-1329 Which is why the XSLT looked the way it did for Nextance. Both the HTML/CSS were for presentation, and the content was farther back in the pipeline. You can't get away from using HTML/XHTML, but you can choose to put your content elsewhere. Which is why the XSLT looked the way it did for Nextance. Both the HTML/CSS were for presentation, and the content was farther back in the pipeline. You can’t get away from using HTML/XHTML, but you can choose to put your content elsewhere.

]]> By: Geof http://alexking.org/blog/2004/03/13/the-myth-of-css/comment-page-1#comment-1323 Geof Mon, 15 Mar 2004 16:23:22 +0000 http://www.alexking.org/blog/2004/03/13/the-myth-of-css/#comment-1323 I'll ignore all the comments and just post my own thoughts. [I could IM Alex, but I am lazy, and I think I want to be public with this.] The zealots would, indeed, like you to believe that you can separate all styling and structure. More often than not, though, I find myself ending up with a div that wraps all the other content. Isn't that superfluous? Why can't you just apply all your styling to body? Well, in many cases, you just can't, which is a shame, really. At that one point, you've added some superfluous code. Now, the interesting thing is that we're in an ever-fluid system of evolving standards and evolving browser support. Will we ever reach some "end point" where XHTML is "done" and CSS is "done" and it's just putting together a wireframe in XHTML and sprucing it up with CSS? Probably not. Why? Someone will want some new feature. A new device will come along that changes how we view content presentation. Does this mean that we should never have gone to a division? No. You could have XML-ified HTML and left the styling all inside the tags, but then that wouldn't get you the joy of One Stylesheet to Rule Them All. Few absolute statements are 100% fact. You can quote me on that. I’ll ignore all the comments and just post my own thoughts. [I could IM Alex, but I am lazy, and I think I want to be public with this.]

The zealots would, indeed, like you to believe that you can separate all styling and structure. More often than not, though, I find myself ending up with a div that wraps all the other content. Isn’t that superfluous? Why can’t you just apply all your styling to body?

Well, in many cases, you just can’t, which is a shame, really.

At that one point, you’ve added some superfluous code.

Now, the interesting thing is that we’re in an ever-fluid system of evolving standards and evolving browser support. Will we ever reach some “end point” where XHTML is “done” and CSS is “done” and it’s just putting together a wireframe in XHTML and sprucing it up with CSS?

Probably not. Why? Someone will want some new feature. A new device will come along that changes how we view content presentation.

Does this mean that we should never have gone to a division? No. You could have XML-ified HTML and left the styling all inside the tags, but then that wouldn’t get you the joy of One Stylesheet to Rule Them All.

Few absolute statements are 100% fact.

You can quote me on that.

]]> By: ben_ http://alexking.org/blog/2004/03/13/the-myth-of-css/comment-page-1#comment-1321 ben_ Mon, 15 Mar 2004 13:57:03 +0000 http://www.alexking.org/blog/2004/03/13/the-myth-of-css/#comment-1321 @Alex: so we obviously have different notions of semantic and presentationl markup. As I really enjoy this discussion, because, we get closer to that thing we all call "semnatic web", I would like to continue it, but I'm afraid, you might think, that the comment section of your weblog is not the right place for that. Anyway, it was a pleassure dicussing with you, and I'll keep visting your blog. Best regards, benjamin @Alex: so we obviously have different notions of semantic and presentationl markup.

As I really enjoy this discussion, because, we get closer to that thing we all call “semnatic web”, I would like to continue it, but I’m afraid, you might think, that the comment section of your weblog is not the right place for that.

Anyway, it was a pleassure dicussing with you, and I’ll keep visting your blog.

Best regards,
benjamin

]]> By: StijlStek.nl http://alexking.org/blog/2004/03/13/the-myth-of-css/comment-page-1#comment-1314 StijlStek.nl Sun, 14 Mar 2004 19:49:16 +0000 http://www.alexking.org/blog/2004/03/13/the-myth-of-css/#comment-1314 <strong>waarom webstandaarden</strong> Er is momenteel weer heel wat discussie gaande over het gebruik van webstandaarden en de scheiding van content en presentatie. Vooral het Lockergnome redesign heeft heel wat stof doen opwaaien. Zoals we van hem gewend zijn heeft dezwozhere een samenvat... waarom webstandaarden
Er is momenteel weer heel wat discussie gaande over het gebruik van webstandaarden en de scheiding van content en presentatie. Vooral het Lockergnome redesign heeft heel wat stof doen opwaaien. Zoals we van hem gewend zijn heeft dezwozhere een samenvat…

]]> By: Alex http://alexking.org/blog/2004/03/13/the-myth-of-css/comment-page-1#comment-1313 Alex Sun, 14 Mar 2004 18:48:16 +0000 http://www.alexking.org/blog/2004/03/13/the-myth-of-css/#comment-1313 I don't agree. Having no predefined presentation (and they do - DIVs are block elements) is irrelevent. They wouldn't be in the source if you weren't going to use them for presentation styling (in the 99% case). I don’t agree. Having no predefined presentation (and they do – DIVs are block elements) is irrelevent. They wouldn’t be in the source if you weren’t going to use them for presentation styling (in the 99% case).

]]> By: ben http://alexking.org/blog/2004/03/13/the-myth-of-css/comment-page-1#comment-1312 ben Sun, 14 Mar 2004 18:21:40 +0000 http://www.alexking.org/blog/2004/03/13/the-myth-of-css/#comment-1312 @Alex: I got that. But the question is: Are extra divs and spans [even if only used in combination with and for the purpose of css-styling]presentational or not? My answer would be: No, they are not presentational, as they have no predefined presentational meaning. @Anne: Ok. I'll try it another way: What't the textual function [besides how they are interpreted by browsers and the like...] of "i" "b" "strong" and "em" according to the fact that "h1" is a level-one heading of the current document, what is in our textual practice some kind of lable, about the content inside that chapter? @Alex: I got that. But the question is: Are extra divs and spans [even if only used in combination with and for the purpose of css-styling]presentational or not?
My answer would be: No, they are not presentational, as they have no predefined presentational meaning.

@Anne: Ok. I’ll try it another way:
What’t the textual function [besides how they are interpreted by browsers and the like...] of “i” “b” “strong” and “em” according to the fact that “h1″ is a level-one heading of the current document, what is in our textual practice some kind of lable, about the content inside that chapter?

]]>