Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

10 Best Resources for CSS

CmdrTaco posted more than 8 years ago | from the slashdot-is-moving-to-css-in-just-a-few-weeks dept.

The Internet 344

victorialever writes "Since one could have noticed an increasing number of websites that are employing CSS and an increasing number of resources talking about how great CSS is, it seems to become impossible not to jump on the CSS bandwagon as well. The 10 Best Resources for CSS provides an impressive list of the CSS resources which have recently become essential for web-developers. Among them - CSSZenGarden, The Web Developer's Handbook, Stylegala, PositionIsEverything etc."

cancel ×

344 comments

Good Article (1, Redundant)

BishonenAngstMagnet (797469) | more than 8 years ago | (#13320223)

That article is quite good and points out a few resources that I (even though I'm a CSS/XHTML/standards geek) hadn't heard of. Keeping it bookmarked for future reference. Hopefully some of these can be used to extend the area of sanity around proper markup...a bit.

Bookmark this page (3, Insightful)

jurt1235 (834677) | more than 8 years ago | (#13320306)

A lot of other CSS sources are already being quoted now, better start bookmarking this /. article then.

Re:Bookmark this page (1)

alnapp (321260) | more than 8 years ago | (#13320380)

Indeed, and a good reference site [w3schools.com] always helps

Re:Bookmark this page (1)

jurt1235 (834677) | more than 8 years ago | (#13320591)

Don't say that I already made mistakes in my little post which w3schools could have prevented (-:

No CSS on that site. (3, Interesting)

McDutchie (151611) | more than 8 years ago | (#13320224)

Anyone taking even a cursory look at the sitepronews.com article source code can see that the layout is done with the usual mess of tables.

Re:No CSS on that site. (1)

BishonenAngstMagnet (797469) | more than 8 years ago | (#13320229)

True, but I was more interested in the article rather than the implementation.

Re:No CSS on that site. (-1, Redundant)

Maian (887886) | more than 8 years ago | (#13320236)

Anyone taking even a cursory look at the sitepronews.com article source code can see that the layout is done with the usual mess of tables.
They're just taking after Slashdot :)

Re:No CSS on that site. (5, Interesting)

BishonenAngstMagnet (797469) | more than 8 years ago | (#13320245)

But we all know that it can be fixed [alistapart.com] ...

Re:No CSS on that site. (5, Insightful)

iBod (534920) | more than 8 years ago | (#13320291)

It's still easier to do certain things with table-based layouts than it is with CSS alone. Control of vertical positioning/height being the obvious one. That and fluid layouts.

If you're a busy designer, sometimes you just have to take the pragmatic route rather that waste hours or days trying to make a pure CSS layout work across all the common browsers (none of which implement CSS 100% correctly anyway).

Either that or (worse) you compromise the design to make it fit the limitations of a pure CSS layout.

I think the latter approach accounts for the huge number of 'identikit', bloggish-looking sites out there (all proudly displaying their little W3c validation logos of course).

It's still perfectly possible to create valid, semantic XHTML/CSS markup that uses the odd table for layout (no, I don't mean a heap of nested ones with spacer gifs!).

While I'm all for standards and separating content from presentation, at this stage of the game, we just need to choose the solution that works best.

I know it's probably heresy to say this, but IMO tables work in an intuitive way that you can easily visualize whereas a mass of floated DIVs often do not!

Re:No CSS on that site. (2, Informative)

mill (1634) | more than 8 years ago | (#13320314)

Umm, it isn't valid semantic markup if you are using tables for layout.

Re:No CSS on that site. (1)

iBod (534920) | more than 8 years ago | (#13320378)

Yes, you're correct. Tables only have semantic meaning for actual tabular data.

Re:No CSS on that site. (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13320344)

I agree that CSS got limitation, but not with vertical height/positioning and fluid layouts. The only thing bothering me is vertical centering.

Real answer - - Money (1)

rednip (186217) | more than 8 years ago | (#13320402)

If you're a busy designer, sometimes you just have to take the pragmatic route rather that waste hours or days trying to make a pure CSS layout work across all the common browsers (none of which implement CSS 100% correctly anyway).
As long as you use the 'strict' delcaration on you pages, it's fairly easy to create a good looking page accross browser implementations. The real issue is that news sites don't build pages indivudally and a change to 'real' CSS would take a major change in the system code. Changing it would be a major implementation, which could cost millions.

Re:No CSS on that site. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13320577)

Good god, if it takes you *days* to do a CSS-positional layout, then you really should learn CSS.

Once you learn it, CSS is easier to layout than using table-hacks, so you actually save the client money.

Re:No CSS on that site. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13320452)

in a way, not too dissimilar from slashdot then...doesn't mean the content is any less valuable.

not (0, Offtopic)

eu_neke (415715) | more than 8 years ago | (#13320226)

first post

Best Resource for CSS? (2, Funny)

gowen (141411) | more than 8 years ago | (#13320237)

The remains of the hull of the USS Merrimack [wikipedia.org] .

Re:Best Resource for CSS? (0)

Colde (307840) | more than 8 years ago | (#13320273)

Surely, you must be new here

Moderators, you didn't get the joke (2, Informative)

lasindi (770329) | more than 8 years ago | (#13320354)

During the US Civil War, the sunken USS Merrimack was raised and converted to an ironclad by the Confederates, who renamed it the CSS Virginia (which later fought in the famous battle [wikipedia.org] of the ironclads). So the parent was just trying to make a, albeit lame, joke about the acronym "CSS." It wasn't truly offtopic, and it definitely wasn't a troll.

Slashdot (0, Flamebait)

salgo (322587) | more than 8 years ago | (#13320239)

Perhaps you boys at Slashdot can read it and bring your website into this millennium.

But they forgot.. (0, Redundant)

IversenX (713302) | more than 8 years ago | (#13320242)

How on earth can they not list THE resource?

http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-CSS2/ [w3.org]

I'm talking about the official specification, of course.

That's what I'm always using to look up attributes, values, etc. It's easy to use, light-weight, and I never have to doubt wether the author made a mistake or not. :-)

Re:But they forgot.. (4, Informative)

RangerRick98 (817838) | more than 8 years ago | (#13320252)

Interesting; the article I read has that site listed third as "Official Cascading Style Sheets Level 2 Specification."

Re:But they forgot.. (0, Redundant)

stienman (51024) | more than 8 years ago | (#13320608)


You are not alone.

And yet you are alone.

So very alone...

-Adam

Wishful thinking. (0, Troll)

reality-bytes (119275) | more than 8 years ago | (#13320261)



Now if we could just get all browser software providers to go and read that spec and adhere to it, we would have a happy-shiny web for all ;)

Unfortunately, some browser writers feel the need to 'extend' standards to their own specification. Of course, it never seems to trouble them that this precludes their browser being standards compliant.

Re:Wishful thinking. (0)

D-Cypell (446534) | more than 8 years ago | (#13320271)

Do you have any particular browser vendor in mind?

Re:Wishful thinking. (1)

reality-bytes (119275) | more than 8 years ago | (#13320280)

I'm not one to name names and tell tales.

Besides, it would be nice if all browser writers aimed to support W3C standards so the writing of webpages themselves would become so much simpler.

Re:But they forgot.. (1)

BishonenAngstMagnet (797469) | more than 8 years ago | (#13320262)

Someone didn't read the article well...

Re:But they forgot.. (1)

iBod (534920) | more than 8 years ago | (#13320338)

Not only that but he gets +4 Informative too!

Just another day on Slashdot ;)

Re:But they forgot.. (2, Informative)

dagny_dev_ (771050) | more than 8 years ago | (#13320286)

I also wish they would have listed the web developer's handbook [alvit.de] , at least as an aside. It's a good starting point. I keep it bookmarked and use it to get to other sites.

Re:But they forgot.. (0)

zkn (704992) | more than 8 years ago | (#13320413)

How on earth can you not read THE fucking article?

Poor CSS2 browser support (1)

goldspider (445116) | more than 8 years ago | (#13320482)

For not I'm sticking with CSS1 until there is better browser support for CSS2. It's great to be standards-compliant, but it's kind of pointless if the majority of browsers can't read it properly. Just my $0.02.

Re:But they forgot.. (1)

Jugalator (259273) | more than 8 years ago | (#13320567)

It's easy to use, light-weight, and I never have to doubt wether the author made a mistake or not. :-)

Well, actually [w3.org] ... ;-)

A list of the site links? (0, Redundant)

puff the barbarian (709196) | more than 8 years ago | (#13320243)

Anyone? The sitepronews site is already /.ed

Re:A list of the site links? (2, Informative)

RangerRick98 (817838) | more than 8 years ago | (#13320247)

Google Cache of article [64.233.161.104]

Re:A list of the site links? (4, Informative)

BishonenAngstMagnet (797469) | more than 8 years ago | (#13320249)

CSS!!! XHTML!!! OH GOD I LOVE THE STANDARDS (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13320246)

fucking nerd "standards enthusiasts" get a life. ciao gonna go fuck my gf then work out

Re:CSS!!! XHTML!!! OH GOD I LOVE THE STANDARDS (0)

bemenaker (852000) | more than 8 years ago | (#13320680)

Right, and you had to read /. first..... whose the nerd now buddy.... :D

Counterstike (4, Funny)

flamearrows (821733) | more than 8 years ago | (#13320250)

Please don't let me be the only one who saw the title and immediately though Counterstrike: Source...

Re:Counterstike (0)

RangerRick98 (817838) | more than 8 years ago | (#13320434)

Sorry man. It's been 50 minutes and no one's spoken up to support your position. Looks like 821733 is the loneliest number on /. today. :)

CSS Cheat Sheet (5, Informative)

Sheriff Fatman (602092) | more than 8 years ago | (#13320256)

May I also recommend Dave Child's CSS Cheat Sheet [ilovejackdaniels.com] ?

Print it out & stick it on the wall/partition - it covers almost all the CSS you'll use day-to-day, and (IMHO) it's much quicker than digging through the online documentation or the O'Reilly book.

Similar things for Javascript, PHP, etc. are linked from here [ilovejackdaniels.com] if you're interested.

It's even better... (1)

Hurricane78 (562437) | more than 8 years ago | (#13320422)

... to know the whole css spec by heart and *understand* it. (like i do ;)

Re:CSS Cheat Sheet (2, Informative)

dse (1194) | more than 8 years ago | (#13320501)

Visibone [visibone.com] 's HTML/CSS reference card is worth the $10. Nice four-page card that goes into a lot more detail on browser compatibility, CSS property values, how CSS relates with HTML, and so forth, yet manages to fit all the CSS stuff in one page.

(They also make a good JavaScript card from which I learned most of my JavaScript, as well as those nifty color charts.)

Re:CSS Cheat Sheet (1)

TedRiot (899157) | more than 8 years ago | (#13320540)

Yes you may, but I looked at them hoping to find something useful such as the vi mug that my former colleague had, but all the cheat sheets seemed to be so basic that there really is no use for them if you do these things on a daily basis and you cannot really find useful information. Most of these attribute names I know in my sleep, but my memory fails on me when I have to come up with legal values for them. Same with PHP, I know the function names, but fail to recall whether the needle or the haystack comes first. I recommend php.net and w3.org. (For JavaScript, I don't know any GOOD references)

Another top 10, hurray! (2, Funny)

suspected (907639) | more than 8 years ago | (#13320258)

I love reading articles that indicate the top 10 of anything because you never have to worry about the list being subjective. You always know that the author went out of his way and used a numerous amount of resources, reviews, and statistics to compile such a list. Either that or he just inappropriately used the "top 10" catch phrase to garner more readers, but I'll give him the benefit of the doubt since this article is on, as Bush would phrase it, "the internets."

can I add one? (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13320259)

The edit css [mozdev.org] plugin for firefox lets you edit the css data for any page and instantly see the changes.

CSS Sidebar for Mozilla/Firefox (4, Informative)

superflippy (442879) | more than 8 years ago | (#13320260)

I find the CSS Sidebar [mozilla.org] immensely useful. It lets me quickly look up a style and see what values it takes. It's also a good reminder of some of the little-used styles.

The REAL news ... (5, Interesting)

ggvaidya (747058) | more than 8 years ago | (#13320266)

from the slashdot-is-moving-to-css-in-just-a-few-weeks dept. ...

Is that for real? Not been having much problems which Slashdot recently, but if they're chucking away their mess of tables ... the apocalypse might be at hand after all! Yippee!

Re:The REAL news ... (2, Informative)

The Mgt (221650) | more than 8 years ago | (#13320303)

I notice slashcode [slashcode.com] seems to have done away with table layout, on the main page anyway.

Re:The REAL news ... (2, Informative)

H0p313ss (811249) | more than 8 years ago | (#13320475)

With multiple stylesheets no less! Time to pre-order Duke Nukum Forever!

<link rel="stylesheet" type="text/css" media="screen, projection" href="//www.slashcode.com/base.css" >
<link rel="stylesheet" type="text/css" media="screen, projection" href="//www.slashcode.com/ostgnavbar.css" >
<link rel="stylesheet" type="text/css" media="screen, projection" href="//www.slashcode.com/slashcode.css" title="Slashcode" >
<link rel="Alternate stylesheet" type="text/css" media="screen, projection" href="//www.slashcode.com/slashdot.css" title="Slashdot" >
<link rel="stylesheet" type="text/css" media="print" href="//www.slashcode.com/print.css" >

Re:The REAL news ... (2, Interesting)

schon (31600) | more than 8 years ago | (#13320603)

Yeah, too bad it doesn't validate. :o)

Re:The REAL news ... (1)

Mr_Silver (213637) | more than 8 years ago | (#13320382)

Is that for real? Not been having much problems which Slashdot recently, but if they're chucking away their mess of tables ... the apocalypse might be at hand after all! Yippee!

I hope this is for real since it will mean that I can stop supporting AvantSlash [fourteenminutes.com] which tries to make Slashdot as PDA and WAP friendly as possible.

Of course, all the parsing of HTML that my code did meant that any little change that occurred on the main Slashdot site completely broke AvantSlash . If you have a look at the change log [fourteenminutes.com] you can see that they did tinker with the HTML on a fairly frequent basis (v2.18 and onwards are mainly parsing changes to keep up with them).

Re:The REAL news ... (3, Informative)

dancallaghan (890674) | more than 8 years ago | (#13320586)

Yeah about time too ... I mean, CSS has only been around for almost nine years [w3.org] ...

pwnd. (2, Informative)

mindwar (708277) | more than 8 years ago | (#13320267)

slashcache [slashcache.com]
also here's a few interesting links bookmarks [alvit.de] layouts [thenoodleincident.com] more layouts [bluerobot.com]

Am I alone? (0)

openfrog (897716) | more than 8 years ago | (#13320269)

...having the impression that the list is not very impressive? Not very comprehensive and no mention of W3schools, for example. Is SitePro News a good site itself? -- I prefer to remain silent.

Re:Am I alone? (1)

BishonenAngstMagnet (797469) | more than 8 years ago | (#13320278)

That's because the W3Schools site isn't very helpful. What good is a site that teaches you a collection of markup with no implementation?

Re:Am I alone? (1)

pimpimpim (811140) | more than 8 years ago | (#13320410)

I use it as a reference, and for that it serves me just fine. w3schools might not be loaden with examples of how to implement the code, but when starting from scratch I'd often just want to know the options available and what they do, rather than having to crawl my way through loads of examples and have to overthink what exactly other people wanted to do there. The way you reason Zengarden might not be useful as well, as it is a collection of implementations without going into the markup details. I would say that w3schools is helpful, it just depends on what you want.

My 2 pence (1)

T-Kir (597145) | more than 8 years ago | (#13320274)

A List Apart [alistapart.com] and StopDesign [stopdesign.com] are sites that have great resources and tutorials, well worth a look.

CSS now also usable in IE! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13320276)

http://dean.edwards.name/IE7/ [edwards.name]

(not affilliated, just a happy user)

Best - NCDesign.org (5, Informative)

N8F8 (4562) | more than 8 years ago | (#13320301)

Awesome reference for HTML and CSS that shows examples and browser compatability:

CSS tables (5, Insightful)

Richard W.M. Jones (591125) | more than 8 years ago | (#13320317)

Yes, a few sites are now using CSS. But often, they still don't "get it" - they've just replaced <table> with <div> to arrive at a mess of divs, instead of a mess of tables. We call this "CSS tables".

Structural markup is the essential differentiating factor, not just that you have found out how to replace tables with divs ...

</rant> over.

Rich.

Re:CSS tables (1)

mindwar (708277) | more than 8 years ago | (#13320350)

which is still better as tables are actualy ment for displaying tabular data

Re:CSS tables (2, Interesting)

zkn (704992) | more than 8 years ago | (#13320528)

And divs are ment to mark divisions, not be a universal styling element.
The point of CSS is to seperate the design from the underlying HTML, not just replace tables with a mess of nested divs.
Divs are ofcause usefull to seperate different parts of the site like menues and content, but to many use several nested divs to make borders, backgrounds and position elements "just right" ending up with code like this for menues:

<div>
<div><a /><div>
<div><a /><div>
<div><a /><div>
</div>

So instead of using CSS to improve the HTML, they use it to fuck it even more up. Now having effectively removed even the slightly understandeble table layout, and replaced it with HTML that only looks right when you have the magic Stylesheet that it was designed for.

Now that CSS has caught on, people need to push semantic HTML using divs for everything just isn't right.

Separate structure from design (1)

goldspider (445116) | more than 8 years ago | (#13320601)

Developers need to keep in mind that (X)HTML should be used to establish structure, and CSS for display.

When you've used HTML for display your whole career (at the expense of structure), it's hard to think of a good page as two necessarily separate parts.

It doesn't help that browsers support bad code either.

Re:CSS tables (1)

Eustace Tilley (23991) | more than 8 years ago | (#13320553)

I understand that you were ranting, but what is the substance of your objection to using divs for page layout?
Is csszengarden not doing exactly that to superb effect?

Re:CSS tables (2, Interesting)

Darkman, Walkin Dude (707389) | more than 8 years ago | (#13320600)

CSS Zen Garden is a wonderful resource and has a lot of pretty pictures in it, but really it is taking two steps back to the start of the web, where every site was a poster with little interaction. All of those fixed layout designs and shiny objects are good to display artistic talent, but try putting dynamic content in there, and you are in for a world of hurt.

Re:CSS tables (1)

Richard W.M. Jones (591125) | more than 8 years ago | (#13320662)

<div> is only occasionally necessary, and should be avoided most of the time.

Admittedly not a great example of web design [merjis.com] , but structurally it does the right thing. If you have firefox, view that web page and go to View -> Page Style -> No Style to see the structural markup (or just use View Source if you're comfortable with that). Of course we do use <div>, but only where it's essential. I would prefer to use it less, or even not at all.

Compare to this [independent.co.uk] or this [yahoo.com] or this [visitcopenhagen.com] to see the overuse of <div>.

Rich.

WebCore vs. Gecko, CSS Rendering (1)

mnemonic_ (164550) | more than 8 years ago | (#13320333)

I've not been paying as much attention to the browser wars as I once did. Does anyone know how WebCore (Safari) and Gecko (Firefox) compare in rendering CSS? I know that Safari supports the (completely awesome) text-shadow [w3.org] property whereas Firefox does not, but what are some other differences?

-moz-stylings (1)

zkn (704992) | more than 8 years ago | (#13320571)

Gecko has som specific CSS stylings that are fairly usefull but only render in gecko like:

  • -moz-border-radius:
  • -moz-border-left-colors:
  • -moz-opacity:

Can't say I know if they are on the official spec for CSS2 or CSS3 but I would like to see gecko implementing stuff in a more nonbrowserspecific way. I don't think these stylings will ever become standart with that syntax.

Re:WebCore vs. Gecko, CSS Rendering (1)

porneL (674499) | more than 8 years ago | (#13320643)

Table of CSS support in various browsers: http://www.quirksmode.org/css [quirksmode.org]

CSS Zen Garden styles (4, Interesting)

AaronLawrence (600990) | more than 8 years ago | (#13320334)

I find it interesting that none of the CSS ZenGarden style sheets I tried resized at all with the browser window, and most of them coped poorly or not at all with large text (many became unusable).

since when... (1)

thelost (808451) | more than 8 years ago | (#13320337)

is this news? not to belittle the importance of CSS but I'm sure everyone here is already quite aware of what it is, how to use it and where the web resources are; I first visited Zen-garden a long time ago for instance. If you're not then you probably are not a web developer. This is not news.

CSS linx (-1, Offtopic)

DrunkenTerror (561616) | more than 8 years ago | (#13320345)

Don't know why it's in the developers section... Here's my list, don't know why TFA didn't list these, so I came up with 10 for you guys.

steampowered.com [steampowered.com]
Wikipedia.org/CounterStrike [wikipedia.org]
CSS Fraggers Forum [punkassfraggers.com]
Filefront? [filefront.com]
GameFaqs (never link directly to a faq, kids) [gamefaqs.com]
CSBanana [csbanana.com]
Counter-Strike.net [counter-strike.net]
Planet Half-Life [planethalflife.com]
Sierra: Half-Life [sierra.com]
CS Nation - The future of CSS [csnation.net]

Re:CSS linx (1)

MBHkewl (807459) | more than 8 years ago | (#13320376)

CSS = Cascading Style Sheets, not Counter Strike, you egg-head!

Oooh, oh, unless you're trying to be funny.. yea that's kinda funny.

How great CSS is (2, Interesting)

ChrisF79 (829953) | more than 8 years ago | (#13320347)

I'm not the best one to comment on this by any means, but when I saw in the summary the part about "how great CSS is," I really do have to agree. I threw together a site just as a way to help some of my students back when I was teaching and really didn't know anything about creating a website. I hacked together a site with tables for layout and some very limited PHP and enjoyed doing it. From there, I went to a site that showed a table layout and the exact page done in CSS and used that as a starting point to learn CSS. I have to say, I was impressed with how much easier it was to use and modify later. Like I said, I'm still a horrible web designer by all accounts, but I can attest to how much easier it is for a person new to the concepts to use CSS instead of tables.

Take a step back and re-evaluate CSS (5, Interesting)

Loundry (4143) | more than 8 years ago | (#13320357)

I'm a programmer who has been thrust into the world of CSS and been on many occasions quite frustrated with it. It seems arbitrary, arcane, and particularly difficult to debug. On top of that, it seems to have a set of zealots who defend it (and demand it) with bitter viciousness.

I had concluded that CSS was "programmer-friendly" in the same way that a rusty jigsaw was "penis-friendly".

I recently picked up a book entitled _Designing with Web Standards_ by Jeffrey Zeldman. It's a good an honest resource, and he even claims to avoid zealotry. But, in the book, he examines a particular website, one with a plain-jane two-column appearance, which he said took "three CSS experts" to re-code from tables to CSS layout. Not three CSS advocates, three CSS *experts*. On top of that, their "solution" turned out to be a hack.

Honestly, what success am I supposed to expect in using CSS when recoding common layouts in CSS is a struggle for even CSS experts? I am forced to conclude that it is folly trying to adhere to any kind of CSS standards with any kind of rigor until CSS itself becomes more mature.

Now this is where I get flamed. I'm sorry, but I have to call it like I see it.

Re:Take a step back and re-evaluate CSS (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13320446)

On top of that, it seems to have a set of zealots who defend it (and demand it) with bitter viciousness.

And rightfully so - programming already requires you to separate presentation from content, why would programming for the web drop that?

I had concluded that CSS was "programmer-friendly" in the same way that a rusty jigsaw was "penis-friendly".
Again, try to apply this paradigm to programming and see how deep the mess can get. You usually don't notice because a lot of HTML is light-weight.

I recently picked up a book entitled _Designing with Web Standards_ by Jeffrey Zeldman. It's a good an honest resource, and he even claims to avoid zealotry. But, in the book, he examines a particular website, one with a plain-jane two-column appearance, which he said took "three CSS experts" to re-code from tables to CSS layout. Not three CSS advocates, three CSS *experts*. On top of that, their "solution" turned out to be a hack.
It took experts because to them, the solution would be clear in a shorter timespan, and they are able to motivate the choices for the design, and they wouldn't go "okay.. whoops. let's scrap idea nr. 1". You could've picked CSS newbies too - but for programming, there's something called a 'design pattern' and it works if you know about them and when to use them.

I am forced to conclude that it is folly trying to adhere to any kind of CSS standards with any kind of rigor until CSS itself becomes more mature.
You mean, until a certain browser adheres instead of making all kinds of stuff up ;).

Now this is where I get flamed. I'm sorry, but I have to call it like I see it.
If you are a programmer, try to spot the equivalent of CSS files in your discipline. Why aren't they arcane there? Because the compiler or the virtual machine will give you the same results, and even for smaller programs, you accept these things as 'required'; when you're learning they're the parts you don't have to understand intimately, but just put 'm in because otherwise it won't work.

The problem is browsers, not CSS (3, Informative)

goldspider (445116) | more than 8 years ago | (#13320530)

I'm reading that book too, but I have a different take on why it took three CSS "experts" to re-code that page.

It's not CSS' fault; it's the noncompliant browsers. Zeldman's book is basically about using CSS to build a standards-compliant web site that renders properly on a variety of non-compliant browsers.

Given the differing level of support among the browsers out there, it's no wonder that one has to jump through some hoops to get a consistent display.

Re:Take a step back and re-evaluate CSS (1)

Xarius (691264) | more than 8 years ago | (#13320635)

I haven't read that book in a while, but it took the three experts to code a cross-browser re-implementation that looked the same across the platforms.

The problem is not CSS itself, but the various implementations of it.

A two column layout is piss-easy in theory, but getting it to look the same in mozilla/MSIE/Opera and friends is another matter altogether.

Java Swing or AWT to HTML and CSS (2, Interesting)

syousef (465911) | more than 8 years ago | (#13320364)

Here's a shameless plug for you. Here's my code for converting Java Swing or AWT to HTML and CSS. It's primitive, but it may be useful to someone. It should be easy to modify this to convert any running Swing/AWT application from Java to HTML/CSS. Oh and of course its GPL.

http://www.progsoc.uts.edu.au/~sammy/javaGUIConver ter.html [uts.edu.au]

Re:Java Swing or AWT to HTML and CSS (1)

OmniVector (569062) | more than 8 years ago | (#13320623)

Spiffy. It would be nice if you included screenshots :) / example exported webpages. My other request is, make the swing converter convert to JSP, so you could create a usable interface for apps / webpages and the same java backend :)

Keep it simple stupid... (1)

bradbury (33372) | more than 8 years ago | (#13320419)

I fail to understand *why* people are fixing things which are not broken. I use the web as an information resource. That means I want "Just the facts Mam". Those could have been presented to me in HTML 3.2 (which many readers may be too young to remember)...

Some sites have intelligent managers (Amazon and Google come to mind). They don't go overboard on overengineering their pages. They work with legacy browsers, etc.

How about an open-source app which plugs into standard proxy filters (e.g. squid) which removes all of the over-engineered crap web sites distribute? (I.e. No more Flash that I didn't request, no more Microsoft HTML'isms I didn't request, no more CSS, no more marketing crap I didn't request, etc.)

I.e. I get back to a world where I view what is important to *me* and not someone trying to sell me something I have no interest in. If that means a few information providers have to revise their business models -- hey thats life.

But I tend to come from the old school -- show me what I want to see -- when I want to see it. All of this overengineering of web pages defeats that.

Re:Keep it simple stupid... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13320480)

What the hell are you ranting about?

Look, the world has moved on since HTML 3.2.

There are many more devices other than computers than need to render web pages now, and you need to be able to SEPARATE CONTENT FROM PRESENTATION and provide a SEMANTIC CONTEXT for the information.

If this blows your mind, go and lie down in a darkened room until the 21st century arrives.

Re:Keep it simple stupid... (1)

zkn (704992) | more than 8 years ago | (#13320644)

The internet seems to me in itself to be a fixing of something that wasn't broken. If you feel like using the web for nothing but text use Lynx.
Why do you feel you need to filter contents to render stuff in browsers that support all the stuff you don't want? Why not just find a browser that fits your needs?
The problem isn't the content providers, it's your inability to request content to your own specifications.

Counter Strike Source (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13320428)

css rocks... boom headshot

Trying to understand CSS... (2, Interesting)

islandrain (888578) | more than 8 years ago | (#13320453)

Ironically, I am taking the week to sit down and really figure out CSS because I'm sick of seeing the term everywhere and having ZERO clue of how to use it effectively. Let me get this straight to begin with - I'm a designer, not a web expert. I use *gasp* Dreamweaver, although I know HTML just fine. It's a visual thing and I work better seeing the flow of the graphics, etc. directly on the page. So my biggest beef is wanting to design non-framed pages where menu links will change without having to manually change them in each page. I want you CSS people to respond to this: Tell me three reasons why CSS is the way to go (cleaner codes isn't a good reason for me, either).

Re:Trying to understand CSS... (1)

megrims (839585) | more than 8 years ago | (#13320524)

(cleaner codes isn't a good reason for me, either).
You wouldn't love pasta, by any chance, would you?

Re:Trying to understand CSS... (2, Informative)

goldspider (445116) | more than 8 years ago | (#13320546)

1. You don't have to modify every .html file when it comes time to re-design.

2. Accessibility - your site will be readable by screen-readers and PDAs.

3. You can use standalone CSS to control the overall dosplay, and in-line CSS to control page-specific elements.

I wouldn't call myself a CSS "expert", but I am a recent convert.

Re:Trying to understand CSS... (1)

mpitcavage (655718) | more than 8 years ago | (#13320679)

"where menu links will change without having to manually change them in each page"

I think your looking for SSI [apache.org] , not CSS. SSI will allow you to "include" a menu page on all your other pages. If you make a change to that menu page, it appears sitewide instantly. It's like Dreamweaver "Templates", but usable.

Bandwagon? (2)

danbeck (5706) | more than 8 years ago | (#13320471)

Jump on the bandwagon? There is no bandwagon, web pages are built with HTML and CSS for many reasons - the least of which is because the Jones' are doing it.

Welcome to the intarnetz, we use CSS here.

not sure if this is a css question (1)

Adult film producer (866485) | more than 8 years ago | (#13320561)

but one of the biggest problems that I have with webpages are the font sizes. I've tried to configure the browsers that my mother & father use, their old eyes can't read many of the fonts people use in their webpages (supersmall & thin).. even with a 19 or 20" monitors, either I'm forced to lower the resolution to something ridiculous like 800x600 or run the regular res (1280x1024 or better) but have "minimum font size" set at 18 or 20 in firefox... That's a problem because fonts that large with a fixed minimum size cause the text in many webpages to overlap one another :( (espn.com, prisonplanet.com, etc even some of those zengarden pages suffer from this..)

CSS 2/3 Examples (1)

jdub_dub (874345) | more than 8 years ago | (#13320575)

The other day I found http://nemesis1.f2o.org/aarchive?id=6 [f2o.org] - it's a fantastic read, showcasing the power of CSS2/3. Well recommended (I learnt heaps - e.g. extracting data from to put into the document, using only CSS!)

this is news? (-1)

circletimessquare (444983) | more than 8 years ago | (#13320580)

isn't this news as of 1999?

CSS showcase (1)

Dr.Opveter (806649) | more than 8 years ago | (#13320585)

Some more CSS showcase sites I like to check out every now and then:

CSS Beauty [cssbeauty.com]
The Weekly Standards [weeklystandards.com]

Also this site [intensivstation.ch] has some nice templates

Some more for you web-design junkies (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13320588)

Google's Directory on Web Design -> FAQs, Help, and Tutorials [google.com]
Eric Meyer's CSS Reference page (warning: requires frames, but it's tasteful use :P) [meyerweb.com]

More on Eric Meyer, who is web-design guru in general, but well-known for his css/edge [meyerweb.com] presentation, and, well, check out his site [meyerweb.com] , definitely worth a read.

Well, that's it, other's that I know of have already been posted.

heehee (0)

mattyrobinson69 (751521) | more than 8 years ago | (#13320592)

1: the us copyright office
2: slashcode

One more (2, Interesting)

amrittuladhar (824792) | more than 8 years ago | (#13320598)

One more, a good resource not only for CSS but many different web technologies, mostly for beginners:

W3 schools [w3schools.com] (Warning: Has a popup, but it's worth it)

Essential Bookmarks For Web Developers (2, Informative)

vitaly.friedman (874102) | more than 8 years ago | (#13320604)

Ironically, the main version [alvit.de] of The Web Developer's Handbook [alvit.de] wasn't mentioned in the list. However, I actually feel great being slashdotted again. ;)

quirksmode (3, Informative)

eelcoh (775552) | more than 8 years ago | (#13320622)

Has anyone mentioned http://www.quirksmode.org/ [quirksmode.org] ?
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...