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!

CSS Turns 10 Years Old

kdawson posted more than 7 years ago | from the celebrating-in-style dept.

The Internet 176

An anonymous reader writes "Cascading Style Sheets celebrate their tenth anniversary this week. The W3C put together the CSS10 site in recognition of this milestone with a Hall of Fame, essays from the past decade, a gallery, and more." I was glad to see the CSS Zen Garden selected for the Hall of Fame, and disappointed (but not surprised) that no browser on my computer correctly renders the Acid2 test.

cancel ×

176 comments

ACID2 Compliance (5, Interesting)

AKAImBatman (238306) | more than 7 years ago | (#17303148)

"[I was] disappointed (but not surprised) that no browser on my computer correctly renders the Acid2 test."


Time to get a new computer [apple.com] .

Here's a list [wikipedia.org] of ACID2 compliant browsers. It's longer than one might think.

Re:ACID2 Compliance (3, Informative)

Kelson (129150) | more than 7 years ago | (#17303246)

Time to get a new computer.

Heck, chances are Opera [opera.com] will run on his current computer.

Isn't it interesting, though, that most of the Acid2-compliant browsers are either Mac or Unix-based? I suppose that has to do with the fact that most Windows-only browsers just embed the IE rendering engine, and most cross-platform browsers use Gecko (here's to Gecko 1.9 passing Acid2 when it's finished!). That basically leaves KHTML and Webkit, which are firmly entrenched in *nix and MacOS respectively, and a couple of independent engines: Opera (cross-platform) and iCab (Mac).

Re:ACID2 Compliance (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17303846)

Webkit is a fork of khtml and the ACID2 compliance was backported from webkit to khtml. khtml is cross platform -- it originated for kde (based on QT, which is quite crossplatform). Aside from KDE ports to other platforms, khtml can be used standalone on Windows, SkyOS, and AmigaOS (amongst others).

Re:ACID2 Compliance (1)

Kelson (129150) | more than 7 years ago | (#17304144)

Aside from KDE ports to other platforms, khtml can be used standalone on Windows, SkyOS, and AmigaOS (amongst others).

Can be, yes -- there's even a Windows KHTML browser in early alpha stages called Swift -- but practically speaking, most KHTML browsers today are running on *nix platforms, and most Webkit browsers are on Mac OS X. Yes, you can run a non-Webkti KHTML browser on Mac OS X, but Webkit is available right there. And IIRC someone ported Webkit to GTK to run it on cell phones (Nokia?), but for the most part *nix browsers (not counting OSX) tend to use Gecko or KHTML.

Re:ACID2 Compliance (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17304350)

Aside from KDE ports to other platforms, khtml can be used standalone on Windows, SkyOS, and AmigaOS (amongst others).

You'll find the first non-KDE port of KHTML was to AtheOS, now Syllable [syllable.org] .

Re:ACID2 Compliance (5, Funny)

catbutt (469582) | more than 7 years ago | (#17303572)

Although you could start using Safari, I have found a better compromise.

I use Firefox for day to day browsing. But every so often, when I find the need to view the sublime smiley face image in all its glory, I fire up Safari for just that. It serves my needs, since I really only need to see the smily image maybe once a day or so.

Re:ACID2 Compliance (5, Insightful)

CastrTroy (595695) | more than 7 years ago | (#17303726)

This outlines the problem. Safari has been "Fixed" so that the acid2 test renders correctly, yet still contains lots of rendering bugs. I would have to say as a web developer that I run into many more rendering bugs on Safari than I do on Firefox (although IE is the worst). I can probably code a browser that correctly renders the acid 2 test in 3 days. It won't render any other pages properly, but it will render the acid2 test.

Re:ACID2 Compliance (3, Funny)

egomaniac (105476) | more than 7 years ago | (#17303908)

Hell, I can create a web browser that will render Acid2 correctly in five minutes.

Step 1: Retrieve Acid2 HTML
Step 2: Completely ignore it and display a screen shot of the correct rendering

Re:ACID2 Compliance (1)

gringer (252588) | more than 7 years ago | (#17304460)

Step 2: Completely ignore it and display a screen shot of the correct rendering
Not quite, the nose needs to light up blue when you hover over it with the mouse cursor.

Re:ACID2 Compliance (2, Funny)

Drooling Iguana (61479) | more than 7 years ago | (#17305628)

Flash.

Re:ACID2 Compliance (1)

Andrew Kismet (955764) | more than 7 years ago | (#17304942)

Nice try, but would the nose of your render turn blue when rolled over? :P
Opera got cheeky and did something similar, albeit after passing: http://files.myopera.com/chuanz/files/acid2.png [myopera.com]

Re:ACID2 Compliance (4, Insightful)

Kelson (129150) | more than 7 years ago | (#17304082)

Safari has been "Fixed" so that the acid2 test renders correctly, yet still contains lots of rendering bugs.

This nicely demonstrates the fact that Acid2 is not a CSS compliance test (something which I've seen claimed in many discussions). If Opera 9 and Safari 2 can both pass Acid2, but Opera 9 has broader and/or less buggy CSS support, then Acid2 cannot tell you the overall level of compliance.

It's important to remember what Acid2 is: namely, a wish list for web developers. It's a bunch of features that developers would like to use, but which had (until recently) limited, buggy, or just plain no support in major browsers. The prestige of passing Acid2 (and, conversely, the shame of not passing it) was supposed to motivate browser developers to essentially fill in the corners of their CSS support, making it feasible for web developers to start using more of their toolboxes.

It's taken time, but it's succeeded, with one notable "we don't care, we don't have to" exception: Internet Explorer. Of the four major engines, KHTML and Opera have it, and Gecko is getting it soon. And the biggest player on the block seems to be doing its best to prevent us from actually using our tools if we want the majority of web surfers to see our sites as designed.

Re:ACID2 Compliance (0)

lysdexia (897) | more than 7 years ago | (#17303958)

Which says to me: It's time for pr0n site developers to band together for the common good by developing stylesheets that cover up the "good parts" on all non-ACID2 compliant browsers.

geek: "Ah! Ah! Gh0d! Render for me! Render for meeeeeeeee!"
computer: "Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm "

Montreal? (1)

Montreal!!hahahahaha (880138) | more than 7 years ago | (#17303624)

hahahahahahaha

Good but not all there yet. (1)

MikeFM (12491) | more than 7 years ago | (#17304352)

Do any browsers really do CSS right? Firefox is missing drop shadows and IE7, Safari, and Opera still don't center content correctly all the time. Still things are a lot better than with older browsers such as IE6.

I wish the standards would be realistic and just realize that no browser is ever going to be 100% perfect in how it renders a page and that in some cases the standard isn't going to be perfect either. I hate to praise IE but IE has a way to only load certains stylesheets for IE or even certain versions of IE. It'd be nice to see that built into the standard so it'd be easier to make minor tweaks for individual cases. If you can specify the stylesheet's media then why not browser? Heck, I like to switch stylesheets based on window size even so why not make that possible also without resorting to Javascript (which results in a minor jump as the page loads and changes stylesheet). Like print stylesheets, few developers might use such browser or size optional stylesheets but for those of us who do it'd make things easier for us and nicer for our users.

Overall, I love CSS though. It allows me to vary the look of my sites a lot and to do things that look good without requiring plug-ins like Flash and without making pages unusable for the disabled. I can't wait for the additional features of CSS3.

Re:Good but not all there yet. (1)

Kelson (129150) | more than 7 years ago | (#17304634)

Heck, I like to switch stylesheets based on window size even so why not make that possible also without resorting to Javascript

You mentioned CSS3, so you may be aware of this already, but CSS media queries [virtuelvis.com] will eventually do this. AFAIK, Opera is still the only browser with even experimental support for them, though.

Re:Good but not all there yet. (1)

Bogtha (906264) | more than 7 years ago | (#17304982)

I hate to praise IE but IE has a way to only load certains stylesheets for IE or even certain versions of IE. It'd be nice to see that built into the standard so it'd be easier to make minor tweaks for individual cases.

Delivering differentiated content to work around buggy user-agents is a function of the transport protocol, not something you want to replicate for each and every file format delivered over that protocol. It is built into the standard - the right standard for this, HTTP. I quote from RFC 2616 [ietf.org] :

The User-Agent request-header field contains information about the user agent originating the request. This is for statistical purposes, the tracing of protocol violations, and automated recognition of user agents for the sake of tailoring responses to avoid particular user agent limitations.

Of course, it isn't reliable, but that's because of abuse from both web developers and browser developers. It's only in the face of this abuse that stupid workarounds in particular file formats is necessary.

Heck, I like to switch stylesheets based on window size even so why not make that possible also without resorting to Javascript

That's already possible with CSS 3 Media Queries [w3.org] , already implemented by Opera.

Re:ACID2 Compliance (1)

kdawson (3715) | more than 7 years ago | (#17304652)

> Time to get a new computer. [apple.com]

Got one. The browsers I tried are Safari 2.0.4 and Firefox 1.5.0.8 -- both of which did pretty well, but not letter-perfect -- and (in Win XP / Parallels) IE 6 and IE 7, both of which were far off the mark.

Re:ACID2 Compliance (1)

AKAImBatman (238306) | more than 7 years ago | (#17304850)

The browsers I tried are Safari 2.0.4 and Firefox 1.5.0.8 -- both of which did pretty well, but not letter-perfect

You might want to recheck that. I personally ran Safari 2.0.4 through the ACID2 test before posting. It's fully compliant*. If you're seeing anything other than the exact same image shown by the ACID2 reference, then there's a problem with your Safari install.

* The nose even lights up! Whee!

/. Test (0)

RAMMS+EIN (578166) | more than 7 years ago | (#17304688)

Some browsers may pass the acid2 test, but does acid2 pass the Slashdot test?

10 years old... (5, Interesting)

Kelson (129150) | more than 7 years ago | (#17303160)

...and we're still waiting for a complete CSS2 implementation. Though to be fair, CSS2 is only 8.5 years old, and has been undergone a couple of minor revisions. I've seen good comparisons of browser support for CSS2 and CSS3 [webdevout.net] . Anyone know of a good summary of current browsers' CSS1 support?

Re:10 years old... (2, Insightful)

Salvance (1014001) | more than 7 years ago | (#17303364)

I don't know if we should give browsers any slack just because CSS2 is "only 8.5 years old". It's pretty poor IMO that a widespread standard such as CSS 2.0 still isn't implemented fully by any browser.

Re:10 years old... (3, Interesting)

poot_rootbeer (188613) | more than 7 years ago | (#17303502)

It's pretty poor IMO that a widespread standard such as CSS 2.0 still isn't implemented fully by any browser.

Maybe that's not only because browser developers have been lazy (IE) or preoccupied with rewriting the browser from the ground up (Netscape/Firefox) for the past 8.5 years, but also because CSS 2.0 is a convoluted, sloppily designed specification?

Re:10 years old... (4, Informative)

Shados (741919) | more than 7 years ago | (#17304240)

but also because CSS 2.0 is a convoluted, sloppily designed specification


Correct. Honestly, I don't really ever want to see an -actively pushed-, and considered "standard" specification proposition go out without a reference implementation. Sit down, agree to a specification, propose it, then make a reference implementation, THEN start pushing it.

When you look at most successful specs, from videocard chipsets, to Java specifications, they come with a reference implementation: this makes sure that everything makes sense in -practice-, not just in theory. With CSS, it is all about theory, without real world tests.

The only reason it got pushed as standard, is because the web evolved too fast for its own good, and no one realised what was happening before it was too late, to propose an alternative to CSS.

Re:10 years old... (1)

Bogtha (906264) | more than 7 years ago | (#17305206)

With CSS, it is all about theory, without real world tests.

On the contrary, some of the most frequently complained about shortcomings of CSS are due to the desire to keep implementations simple, which is practically the opposite of being "all about theory". They purposefully left out things like a decent query mechanism because they considered it too hard for people to implement.

The only reason it got pushed as standard, is because the web evolved too fast for its own good, and no one realised what was happening before it was too late, to propose an alternative to CSS.

No, Netscape implemented an alternative (JSSSL) and submitted it to the W3C for standardisation [w3.org] . It was more powerful than CSS, and that's one of the reasons why CSS was a better choice.

Re:10 years old... (1)

Shados (741919) | more than 7 years ago | (#17305494)

On the contrary, some of the most frequently complained about shortcomings of CSS are due to the desire to keep implementations simple, which is practically the opposite of being "all about theory". They purposefully left out things like a decent query mechanism because they considered it too hard for people to implement.
Makes sense. However, looking at the specs, its too simple to pass a real world usuability test (aka: do what my customers want it to do), yet too convoluted to be implemented properly (as a programmer myself, I'd rather implement XAML, Java or Flash from scratch than CSS, at first glance. You know, the whole "This property works. But only for elements of this type. Or with this, this, or that property. Unless its parent has this property, or is of this type. Unless you're using %, in which case it doesn't work at all. Unless....". Holy jesus!).
No, Netscape implemented an alternative (JSSSL) and submitted it to the W3C for standardisation
Ok, you win there, I didn't know about that. Though the W3C has proven (with things like XSD, etc) that it is amazingly bad at selecting useful standards... so I'm really wondering if, at the time (obviously TODAY it is easy to see where CSS failed, and propose something better, but it wasn't back then), something better could have been done, if the process of selecting a standard would have went better...

Re:10 years old... (1)

Kelson (129150) | more than 7 years ago | (#17303566)

I don't know if we should give browsers any slack just because CSS2 is "only 8.5 years old".

Sorry, I left out the scare quotes around "only."

Re:10 years old... (1)

jd (1658) | more than 7 years ago | (#17305168)

No doubt we'll see plenty of confusion, given that CSS2 is barely recognized. Hmmm - maybe Slashdot should claim CSS10 compliance, as the site lists it. :)


As for CSS 2 being 8.5 years old, that's 3,192.5 days. If we assume a programmer can spend 8 hours a day, that gives us 24,820 workable programming hours since the spec came out, per programmer. Sure, outside of F/OSS (and Electronic Arts) no programmer is going to work 365 days a year, but then very few companies are going to allocate just one programmer to this. You can easily imagine some teams being in the tens of developers for CSS - maybe hundreds in the Open Source world.


You can't directly use man-hours, because there is interaction between attributes and you can't parallelize beyond a certain level. It's hard to predict just how long it would take to write, component-test and integrated-test each function that you'd need, but a competent team should be able to do a decent level of parallelization and minimize management to where it belongs. (The coffee room - someone has to make the coffee for the engineers!) In 8.5 years, you should be able to implement and formally prove any meaningful permutation of a few hundred attributes, or implement and do very adequate testing on a few thousand, within the closed-source community and ten times that in Open Source.


By now, we should not be talking about what functions have not been implemented or how many thousand bugs there are per line of code. By now, we should be talking about how CSS 2 is so rock-solid stable and universal that nobody can remember a time before it, and bugs should be measured per thousand browsers.

A little ironic? (4, Funny)

iamjoltman (883526) | more than 7 years ago | (#17303162)

Is it just me, or is it a little ironic that the page that celebrates 10 years of CSS is so bland looking?

Re:A little ironic? (1)

Klaidas (981300) | more than 7 years ago | (#17303870)

No, it's not just you ;)
I've noticed that almost all log-living websites have such a blank desing :|

Re:A little ironic? (1)

Aqua OS X (458522) | more than 7 years ago | (#17303884)

Ironic? No.

Fitting? Yes.

Re:A little ironic? (1)

AnyoneEB (574727) | more than 7 years ago | (#17305006)

But it's highly themeable. ;)

Re:A little ironic? (0)

sootman (158191) | more than 7 years ago | (#17305556)

What do you mean? Did you miss the awesome part where when you mouse over the links* in the top row they go from being nice white-on-black text to light-blue-on-white with a drop shadow in a box with no padding? *gag*

Proving once again that it's better to have talent and bad tools than good tools but no talent.

* note: the first bit of text, which looks EXACTLY like the other bits of text in that row, is not a link, just like the e*trade example here. [joelonsoftware.com] Actually, whichever page you're on gets the this-isn't-a-link treatment, but nothing else about the text indicates that it's the page you're on. So I guess to figure out which page you're on, just mouse over all the links and see which one doesn't change. Oh, wait, I see--there's also the little pixel-y graphic that moves. I see. But the little graphic just looks like a fancy bullet on the first page since it's all the way on the left. Wait, let me check Firefox (I'm using Safari) to make sure I'm not missing anything. [checks] Nope, the only difference is Firefox doesn't show the drop shadow. Nice.

Which is better design:
- having distinct things which look distinct when you first see them--tabs, for example**
- having distinct things with small visual distinctions which only become apparent when you do a few different things and look closely for differences, like those spot-the-six-differences-in-these-two-pictures things in the Sunday comics.

** note: for as good as Apple is, I'm super-pissed that they ditched tabs in favor of blue buttons starting in OS X 10.3. Tabs are WAY easier to differentiate, especially when there's only 2 choices. And they don't almost disappear when the tabbed-item-in-question isn't the foreground app.

Safari has done Acid2 for more than a year! (1, Redundant)

network23 (802733) | more than 7 years ago | (#17303172)


Are you on acid?

Apples Safari has been able to render Acid 2 for more than a year now.

- - -

http://mil.int.gov.edu.org [edu.org]

Re:Safari has done Acid2 for more than a year! (1)

hr.wien (986516) | more than 7 years ago | (#17303504)

Opera also passes. What's your point? The summary said no browser on his computer passes ACID2, so I'm guessing he's not a Mac or Opera user.

Re:Safari has done Acid2 for more than a year! (1)

Midnight Thunder (17205) | more than 7 years ago | (#17304170)

Opera also passes. What's your point? The summary said no browser on his computer passes ACID2, so I'm guessing he's not a Mac or Opera user.

Yup, he is probably using Windows 98 or something. Of course there is the possibility he is using Lynx on a VT100 terminal :)

Re:Safari has done Acid2 for more than a year! (3, Informative)

Shados (741919) | more than 7 years ago | (#17304184)

The sad part is, Safari can pass Acid 2, but last I checked, it didn't handle onload image event contexts properly. Sad.

works perfectly (1)

commodoresloat (172735) | more than 7 years ago | (#17305488)

"Safari can't open the page.
Safari could not open the page "http://www.webstandards.org/action/acid2/" because the server stopped responding."

Thanks, slashdot!

And apparently (1, Redundant)

Marxist Hacker 42 (638312) | more than 7 years ago | (#17303176)

Slashdot's advertisers STILL CAN'T GET IT RIGHT. I just saw a CSS error, in Firefox 1.5, that disappeared with a reload. Obviously a top of screen banner ad went bad.

CSS or CS:S? (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17303208)

You know you're a nerd when the first thing that springs to mind is, "WOW, Counter-Strike Source COULDN'T be 10 years old... Could it?!"

Re:CSS or CS:S? (2, Funny)

Ingolfke (515826) | more than 7 years ago | (#17303292)

I'm not up on the finer points out the definitions for "nerd" and "geek" but it would seem to me that if your first thought about a core web technology like CSS was about Counter Strike your more likely to be a loser then a nerd... maybe a nerdy loser.

It just works! (2, Informative)

skia (100784) | more than 7 years ago | (#17303210)

I was ... disappointed (but not surprised) that no browser on my computer correctly renders the Acid2 test.

You're clearly not using a mac [slashdot.org] .

Wow! (5, Funny)

NoMoreNicksLeft (516230) | more than 7 years ago | (#17303230)

PNG was almost 10 years old when IE finally supported it! Maybe this means that IE8* will have CSS! Hurray!

*IE8 is expected to debut sometime in late 2018.

Re:Wow! (0, Redundant)

Yvan256 (722131) | more than 7 years ago | (#17303336)

Too bad PNG is still not supported correctly by IE (alpha channel).

It's also too bad that CSS support is still buggy in some browsers. However, IE is the one still lagging far behind the others.

Re:Wow! (4, Funny)

NoMoreNicksLeft (516230) | more than 7 years ago | (#17303488)

Thank you. My joke wasn't nearly clumsy enough on its own, I needed someone completely oblivious to sarcasm to come along and add that part in.

Re:Wow! (0, Offtopic)

Yvan256 (722131) | more than 7 years ago | (#17303974)

My comment was about IE still not supporting PNG completely, not your comments themselves.

Re:Wow! (1)

NoMoreNicksLeft (516230) | more than 7 years ago | (#17305312)

It finally supports alpha transparency. The problem is, with their WGA bullshit and abandonment of older platforms, IE7 will never become the 99% adoption (among IE users) that it needs to become, not in any sane period of time. Just dropping WGA and pushing it out as a critical update, we'd be able to ignore filter() bullshit by the end of January.

They're not interested in giving out their browser, so much as forcing obselensence to sell copies of the new OS. Funny how their browser was only free long enough to scuttle the competition. (Or is it really an OS subsystem component?)

Re:Wow! (1)

Kelson (129150) | more than 7 years ago | (#17303652)

Too bad PNG is still not supported correctly by IE (alpha channel).

I take it you haven't been following news about IE7? Or did I miss something and it's got some major bug in its alpha channel support?

Re:Wow! (1)

Yvan256 (722131) | more than 7 years ago | (#17303840)

IE7 won't replace IE5 and IE6 for quite a few years to come. Today's support comes from yesterday. As the parent wrote, we should have proper CSS support from IE users at around 2018.

Re:Wow! (1)

blibbler (15793) | more than 7 years ago | (#17305276)

Curiously IE was the first browser to support PNG alpha channel.

10 years (5, Funny)

wumpus188 (657540) | more than 7 years ago | (#17303310)

<div class='rant'> ... and still no vertical centering. </rant>

Re:10 years (2, Insightful)

Yvan256 (722131) | more than 7 years ago | (#17303374)

... and still no "height=100% of parent container" either. We're still forced to do either javascript and/or visual hacks to make two columns of the same height with dynamic content inside each column.

Re:10 years (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17303582)

You guys must be retarded. I have no problem centering something vertically or making two columns of the same height with dynamic content using nothing but a combination of HTML and CSS.

Re:10 years (1)

Yvan256 (722131) | more than 7 years ago | (#17303918)

I have no problem centering something vertically or making two columns of the same height with dynamic content using nothing but a combination of HTML and CSS.
Really? Only HTML and CSS? No table and no javascript messing around rewriting the document?

Then why don't you share your genius with us, oh great AC?

Re:10 years (3, Informative)

Scarblac (122480) | more than 7 years ago | (#17305530)

Really? Only HTML and CSS? No table and no javascript messing around rewriting the document?

In what way is table not HTML?

Re:10 years (1)

jo42 (227475) | more than 7 years ago | (#17303602)

What you want is called a "table"...

Re:10 years (2, Informative)

brunascle (994197) | more than 7 years ago | (#17303718)

that's what they're talking about.

i dont remember the specifics of it, but i ran into this problem last year trying to set height=100% on a table. when it didnt work, i hunted down the reason: apparently, proper HTML has never had height=100% as a valid value for a table. the w3c explained that tables were never meant to be used for layout, but only for displaying tabular data.

Re:10 years (1)

Shados (741919) | more than 7 years ago | (#17304148)

The part that irks me about the whole "table were never meant to be used for layout" deal, is that in most other environment, there are multiple layout methods. CSS implements most of those. Even a subset of "table layouts" in the form of the display:table-cell, display:table, etc, but no actual grid/table layout of some kind. To do some stuff, these ARE the easiest way to do things.

So in the same way in other environments we have "data tables", to display tabular data, and "table layout" to do what tables have been used to do in HTML, there should be something like that in CSS too (and no, the display CSS properties aren't enough).

Re:10 years (1)

Yvan256 (722131) | more than 7 years ago | (#17303892)

Tables are supposed to be used for tabular data, not content layout.

Re:10 years (1)

j_sp_r (656354) | more than 7 years ago | (#17303386)

that's a
closed with a ... Wouldn't that be incorrect? Really you cannot style that properly without styling my post.

Re:10 years (1)

wumpus188 (657540) | more than 7 years ago | (#17303534)

oops.. hey, nobody's perfect, after all.. ;)

? Surely? (1)

littleghoti (637230) | more than 7 years ago | (#17304630)

</div>? Surely?

Oh thanks /. I feel old now :( (1)

Tei (520358) | more than 7 years ago | (#17303380)

Is like technology growing old all around me. 2002 is like the year I started with Wiki, and now looks almost like the good old days.
Dont let me start with 1995 and my commodore 64 computer ....

Re:Oh thanks /. I feel old now :( (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17303630)

"Wiki" isn't a proper noun.

Ten Year Anniversary Page @ w3c.org (1)

markjl (151828) | more than 7 years ago | (#17303536)

http://www.w3.org/Style/CSS10/ [w3.org] first link points to the press release and the CSS Hall of Fame [w3.org] is worth visiting, too!

It was about ten years ago that I saw Hakon present CSS to some of the engineers and product managers at Netscape, where I was a technology evangelist. That was a great moment in my career, where I knew how much trouble we had with the rendering engine as well as how much responsibility we had to fight the good fight for standards.

Thanks to Hakon and Bert, congrats to the w3c, and keep on on styling your designs!

Re:Ten Year Anniversary Page @ w3c.org (1)

howcome (618813) | more than 7 years ago | (#17303806)

It was about ten years ago that I saw Hakon present CSS to some of the engineers and product managers at Netscape, where I was a technology evangelist. That was a great moment in my career, where I knew how much trouble we had with the rendering engine as well as how much responsibility we had to fight the good fight for standards.

Wow. Thank you for remembering. And posting.

-h&kon [opera.com]

http://www.csszengarden.com/ (1, Funny)

Brummund (447393) | more than 7 years ago | (#17303548)

Yay, yet another bunch of web pages with light grey text on white background! Just what the world needed.

Come on guys, it might be valid CSS, but it is not easy on the eyes.

Re:http://www.csszengarden.com/ (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17304298)

zengarden is for php sites - as soon as you implement in html format it loses something zengarden will remain as trendy as php remains fashionable.

Re:http://www.csszengarden.com/ (1)

spun (1352) | more than 7 years ago | (#17304308)

There are dozens of different entries at that site. Maybe hundreds, it's been a few years since I looked though all of them. Most of them do not have light grey text on a black background. The neat thing about the site is that the html is exactly the same, only the CSS changes.

Re:http://www.csszengarden.com/ (2, Interesting)

ewhac (5844) | more than 7 years ago | (#17304328)

You did check the hundreds of other stylings of the same content, didn't you?

In case you didn't, here [csszengarden.com] are [csszengarden.com] a few [csszengarden.com] examples [csszengarden.com] .

The point of the site is to illustrate how the exact same HTML file can be displayed in an infinite number of ways by simply changing the CSS. The site is essentially an argument for a semantic Web.

Schwab

Look closer (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17304492)

Perhaps it's not as obvious as it should be, but the point of the CSS Zen Garden [csszengarden.com] isn't the default stylesheet (the grey-on-white colour scheme you mention).

It's actually a gallery of very different styles, including quill pens on parchment [csszengarden.com] , urban tagging [csszengarden.com] , and even one that looks like an old-time movie theatre with scrolling credits.

FIRE MILLEN! (-1, Offtopic)

Luscious868 (679143) | more than 7 years ago | (#17303600)

F ree agent signings that don't pan out
I rate fans
R etreads at QB who failed on other teams
E xtreme incompetence

M arty, Mooch and now Marinelli
I ll-advised draft picks
L osingest GM presently in the NFL
L aughingstock of the sports world
E mbarassment to the city of Detroit
N ever won more than 2 games back to back

What's a Fire Millen? (0, Offtopic)

spun (1352) | more than 7 years ago | (#17304372)

Is that some kind of server room safety equipment? And what's NFL? Is that some new kind of filesystem? Don't just tease us with these mysterious new IT related products, give us the details!

Uh oh (4, Interesting)

sirnuke (866453) | more than 7 years ago | (#17303678)

Uh oh [w3.org]
#navigation li Invalid number : text-shadow Property text-shadow doesn't exist : 0 2px 4px #000

Re:Uh oh (3, Informative)

Bogtha (906264) | more than 7 years ago | (#17305378)

The W3C's CSS validator has recently been changed to check against CSS 2.1 by default instead of CSS 2. The text-shadow property was removed from CSS 2.1 because virtually no browser developers bothered to implement it. The stylesheet is still a valid CSS 2 stylesheet, but you wouldn't know that because nobody's bothered to come up with a way of labelling stylesheets to denote what level of CSS they are meant to conform to.

10 years of "how come" (1)

elcid73 (599126) | more than 7 years ago | (#17303822)

Håkon Wium Lie [opera.com]

GNAA (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17303862)

were t4ken over

Gah! Ten? (2)

Ai Olor-Wile (997427) | more than 7 years ago | (#17303948)

CSS10? But IE still doesn't have CSS2... aha! It's a binary joke! I get it now! There are 10 kinds of browsers in the world: those that implement CSS properly and those that don't.

Re:Gah! Ten? (2)

RAMMS+EIN (578166) | more than 7 years ago | (#17304784)

``There are 10 kinds of browsers in the world: those that implement CSS properly and those that don't.''

Sadly, I think there is only 1 kind.

Great! Now let's use it!! (1)

thetekwiz (965889) | more than 7 years ago | (#17304048)

Ok, guys, the "Age of the Tables" is officially over. Let's start using divs! (Correctly, please).

Re:Great! Now let's use it!! (1)

Bogtha (906264) | more than 7 years ago | (#17305444)

No, if you are thinking of the <div> element type as a replacement for the <table> element type, you're still doing it wrong. Moving to CSS isn't about replacing <table> with <div>, it's about using the most appropriate element type for the job. You only use <div> when there isn't anything more appropriate (there usually is).

Was it worth it? (0, Troll)

Animats (122034) | more than 7 years ago | (#17304134)

Before CSS, we had formatting with nested tables. After CSS, we had formatting with nested DIVs. Big deal. Plus absolute positioning, the big mistake. And layers, which are 10% useful and 90% annoying ads.

Of course, now we have more "abstraction". Yeah, we have a macro system. Big deal.

The real effect of CSS was to make web layout more complicated, so as to keep a role for programmers in web design. Otherwise, the artists would be in full control by now.

Re:Was it worth it? (1)

Rakishi (759894) | more than 7 years ago | (#17305038)

Big deal.

Because it's always fun to have to change 342 different areas/tags to make page or site wide change.

The real effect of CSS was to make web layout more complicated, so as to keep a role for programmers in web design. Otherwise, the artists would be in full control by now.

No one forces you to use CSS, if your hypothetical artist wants to they can have all the fun they want with html. Well that is until their templated editor craps out on something (I'm assuming they're not utterly stupid), they need to do something semi-complex (ie: javascript, user controlled templates, etc.), someone else needs to take over the mess they made, bandwith is becoming a problem and so on.

Re:Was it worth it? (1)

Dracos (107777) | more than 7 years ago | (#17305560)

The real effect of CSS (and its goal) is separation of content from presentation.

CSS is about as much programming as HTML. Ever tried to execute a stylesheet? I don't think so. Calling it a macro system proves you have no idea what you're talking about.

The only added complexity in using CSS is that it's another syntax to learn. Offsetting that is the fact that table layouts are bloated and their structure is hard to follow. CSS layouts result in leaner, cleaner documents. As they say, "It's about content, stupid."

As for the "artists", they're still around, thinking that a web page is a canvas that they can paint whatever they like on. They never knew HTML, they didn't bother to learn CSS, they have no use for any web standards because they are ar-teests, that's why they use Flash. Or still slice up their Photoshop mockups into tables.

CSS turns 10, typographers still crying (1)

Aqua OS X (458522) | more than 7 years ago | (#17304186)

I'm sorry, but I can't wait until my options for web type are more then the font tag, a crappy style sheet, a picture that looks like type, Flash, or some sort of odd embeded media option that a only fraction of people can view. I hope by the time Slashdot posts "CSS turns 20" we've finally embraced our SVG overlords, or some sort of superior vector graphic solution.

Even if browsers were to finally properly support tracking, x-height controls, etc., CSS is still obnoxiously rudimentary in comparison to the typesetting tools that exist for static type. Hell, it's been over a decade and there is still no widespread adoption of a way to embed an f'n typeface in cross platform / cross browser way that does not annoy everyone. ugh.

Re:CSS turns 10, typographers still crying (3, Interesting)

croddy (659025) | more than 7 years ago | (#17304504)

The great thing about a personal computer is that I can customize the settings to my personal preferences. If, god help us all, you ever do find a way to embed typefaces in web pages, I'll be painlessly overriding your designs with black Bitstream Vera on a pale gray background.

I can't wait either.

Re:CSS turns 10, typographers still crying (2, Interesting)

Aqua OS X (458522) | more than 7 years ago | (#17304802)

Believe it or not, some graphic designers / typographers actually know what they hell they're doing; and they've been schooled to use typesetting to as a communication tool that can actually increase comprehension, legibility, reading speed, etc. Yet I can't necessarily say thats all, or the majority, of "graphic designers."

That said, yes, properly styled and typeset text needs to live and accessible. It's currently not (at least in any practical form), and that's the problem.

Usable positioning in another 10? (4, Insightful)

bill_mcgonigle (4333) | more than 7 years ago | (#17304220)

Hey, and maybe in another ten years we'll have a position system that works reliably across browsers and can survive the window being resized, the dpi being changed, or the font being enlarged. Other than tables I mean.

I did the CSS -showcase thing a few months ago and about 10% of the layouts by the CSS Masters of the Universe fit the above criteria. It may not be impossible, but the bar's too high.

Re:Usable positioning in another 10? (1)

RAMMS+EIN (578166) | more than 7 years ago | (#17304740)

``Hey, and maybe in another ten years we'll have a position system that works reliably across browsers and can survive the window being resized, the dpi being changed, or the font being enlarged. Other than tables I mean.''

My first reaction to this is: I don't think this is a problem with CSS. Maybe there is a problem with implementations, or with webmasters doing things the wrong way. Am I missing something?

Re:Usable positioning in another 10? (1)

crayz (1056) | more than 7 years ago | (#17305670)

Yeah: CSS makes it so difficult to do proper layout that will look right in all browsers, that most people stick with tables. Part of this is the fault of browser implementors(*cough* IE *cough*), but its a real sore-spot for web design

And here I thought (1)

moheezy (1032844) | more than 7 years ago | (#17304442)

And here I thought that CSS meant Content Scrambling System(This is the 10th anniversary of CSS btw) which isn't a great thing to celebrate since it was cracked in a three years.

Re:And here I thought (1)

RAMMS+EIN (578166) | more than 7 years ago | (#17304822)

``And here I thought that CSS meant Content Scrambling System(This is the 10th anniversary of CSS btw) which isn't a great thing to celebrate since it was cracked in a three years.''

It took that long? I never knew.

Yes and in 10 Years (4, Insightful)

fullphaser (939696) | more than 7 years ago | (#17304588)

They have yet to convince me just how they are going to make the table obsolete, every time you turn a corner you are hearing from CSS users (including myself) the end of the table is near, don't use the table, I think the real question ought to be why not use the table, besides the lag, the complications with non css table layouts actually tend to go down in my experience. Yes I could spend 2 days figuring out why the div layout is being difficult and use CSS hacks to make it cross browser, but in the long run the div/css layout has a lot to work on before you see it being adopted as anything more than a side note for those who want to show off their skills. Right now CSS because of its major lack of vertical control is far less stable than the table structure, yes we are told you should burn in hell for even thinking of using tables, but on the end note it works, and quite frankly If I am going to get more stable results at the the price of not promoting the great CSS, than I can get over it. I am glad CSS has had 10 years and a congratulations are in order for them, but please if you are going to promise the end of an era or style try to make sure you can back it up with proof like the decline of nearly every major dynamic web software relying on tables to ensure stability (with CMS's trying to move to the div, the BBS stuck in a rut because css/divs just don't seem to help do them well

Re:Yes and in 10 Years (1)

bwy (726112) | more than 7 years ago | (#17305306)

I agree 100%. I don't do a lot of HTML work- but I seem to have a project every year or so. For the past several years I've started each project fresh thinking "this is the time I quick using tables!" and it never fails- I spend days trying to make a div layout work. My deadline approaches and I end up using tables again.

Who the heck is behind this "table is dead" mentality? Personally, I dislike CSS. It leaves guys like me in the cold. What do I mean? In my experience CSS isn't as easy or usable by people who code HTML by hand- especially on a casual basis. I suppose this doesn't matter for users that desire a WYSIWYG editor. And I guess it doesn't matter for users who use CSS daily in their profession and become proficient at it. It is those of us who have to develop the occasional JSP or small web site that won't make the transition.

Re:Yes and in 10 Years (1)

growse (928427) | more than 7 years ago | (#17305724)

Because by using a table as a stylistic and not a semantic element, you're depriving me of the ability and the choice of viewing your page without any styling at all. For a well designed page, I should be able to switch all styling off and have the content presented to me in a logical, sensible manner. If you use tables and I switch CSS off, I've suddenly got a whole bunch of information presented in a table for absolutely no reason. People aren't saying "Don't use the table", they're saying "Don't use the table unless you're presenting tabular data". There's no such campaign for the "death of the table", that's just retarded. People who mis-use HTML are, however, annoying.

The actual nature of the content and the way it is presented on the page should be two completely separate things, usually written by two different people. That means don't change the semantics of the data just to fit your styling needs. Style the way the standards say. If using tables was ok, most people wouldn't be pissed off that no browser follows the styling standard properly yet - they'd just use tables.

That's 10 years of not using it! (0, Troll)

NineNine (235196) | more than 7 years ago | (#17304750)

Wow! CSS has been son incredibly inconsequential, that I have gone 10 years, running income-producing web sites, with no CSS, whatsoever. That's pretty amazing, when you think about it, that CSS has made such a lack of impact.

Re:That's 10 years of not using it! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17304996)

I can't tell. Your website [ninenine.com] is down.

Re:That's 10 years of not using it! (1)

Dracos (107777) | more than 7 years ago | (#17305106)

I'm baffled and saddened that you're proud of this. Do you still have a Pentium I as your main desktop? How's that bandwidth bill treating you, since your Intarweb pages are 20% to 60% more bloated than they could be?

Re:That's 10 years of not using it! (1)

NineNine (235196) | more than 7 years ago | (#17305230)

How's that bandwidth bill treating you, since your Intarweb pages are 20% to 60% more bloated than they could be?

Are you kidding? Bandwidth is near free, these days. Hell, it's about 1/10 of my phone bill. Who cares?

Slashdot using invalid css? (1)

mrcgran (1002503) | more than 7 years ago | (#17305380)

Trying slashdot.org on article's link http://www.w3.org/Style/CSS10/ [w3.org]
18 December 2006 - Fuji CSS Validator released (more) http://jigsaw.w3.org/css-validator/ [w3.org]

--
W3C CSS Validator Results for http://www.slashdot.org/ [slashdot.org]
Sorry! We found the following errors
URI : http://images.slashdot.org/base.css?T_2_5_0_138 [slashdot.org]
16 h1, h2, h3, h4, h5, h6 Invalid number : text-shadow Property text-shadow doesn't exist : #000 0 0 0
176 Invalid number : min-width Property min-width doesn't exist : 0
178 Combinator ~ between selectors is not allowed in this profile or version
345 div.storylinks ul li.comments Invalid number : text-shadow Property text-shadow doesn't exist : #000 0 0 0
638 div.storylinks ul li.bin Invalid number : text-shadow Property text-shadow doesn't exist : #000 0 0 0
659 a.ac-source Invalid number : background-color darkgray is not a color value : darkgray
668 #ac-select-widget Invalid number : background-color lightgray is not a color value : lightgray
674 #ac-select-widget input Invalid number : border lightgray is not a color value : 2px solid lightgray
688 #ac-choices .yui-ac-content Invalid number : border darkgray is not a color value : 1px solid darkgray
URI : http://images.slashdot.org/slashdot.css?T_2_5_0_13 8 [slashdot.org]
15 a#newuser Invalid number : text-shadow Property text-shadow doesn't exist : #000 0 0 0

Warnings (224)
URI : http://images.slashdot.org/handheld.css?T_2_5_0_13 8 [slashdot.org]
17 Same colors for color and background-color in two contexts #logo h1 a and #slogan h2
26 Same colors for color and background-color in two contexts div#links div.block div#links-sections-title and .details
26 Same colors for color and background-color in two contexts div.block div.title and .details
26 Same colors for color and background-color in two contexts div#links div.block div#links-sections-title and .details
26 Same colors for color and background-color in two contexts div#links div.block div.title and .details ...etc
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...