Submitting a review for consideration is easy; please first read Slashdot's book review guidelines. Updated: 2008114 by samzenpus
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners. Comments are owned by the Poster. The Rest © 1997-2009 Geeknet, Inc.
Does your name... (Score:3, Funny)
Love of free software (Score:4, Funny)
Well...Håkon?
Why? (Score:5, Funny)
Because of America harbors ursine evil. (Score:5, Funny)
Because America is known to harbor bears, godless killing machines without a soul that are a threat to free men everywhere. If you harbor bears you are bears.
Put a stop to America's bearrorism today. [petitionspot.com]
Parent
Re:Because of America harbors ursine evil. (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Where... (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Where... (Score:5, Interesting)
OK, here's my related question:
Do you think the W3C development process is too slow? I know that you guys want everything to be perfect, but it seems to take far longer than necessary. CSS 3 shows promise and I wouldn't want it to die a slow death in standardization.
Parent
Opera (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Opera (Score:3, Funny)
Translation: I like Opera, please give them your blessings so that I may sleep at night.
I have one (Score:3, Funny)
Padding (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Padding (Score:5, Interesting)
Parent
Re:Padding (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
No, really! -- a slashdot editor wrote this! (Score:5, Funny)
Duplicates? On Slashdot? Surely you jest, sir!
Re:No, really! -- a slashdot editor wrote this! (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Why is CSS such a good idea but a pain to use? (Score:5, Interesting)
Why is CSS such a pain compared to other languages?
Re:Why is CSS such a good idea but a pain to use? (Score:4, Insightful)
It's really not that bad once you get on to it. It would be nice if it could do math to calculate positions/sizes/etc., and supported multiple backgrounds for a single element, ala Safari. But all in all, it's poor browser support that really makes CSS difficult.
Parent
Re:Why is CSS such a good idea but a pain to use? (Score:3, Interesting)
But there are cases where CSS cannot perform layout as well as tables. One of the reasons is because you can center a table that is sized to fit the content. In other words, in CSS you need to specify the size of the container in order to "auto" the margin
Re:Why is CSS such a good idea but a pain to use? (Score:5, Insightful)
- You are supposed to separate content and visual elements. An input is both.
- An HTML page has to be XML. To achieve this part of positioning is delegated to attributes.
- The belief that tables are bad. In fact they are very intuitive elements - unlike the DIVs. It would have been much better if we could do with one block element that had the strong points of both tables and divs.
- A total disregard for consistency. Every HTML page contains 3 languages for the same thing: HTML, CSS and javascript. In many cases all three use slightly different names for the same thing. It would have been much better if they had been integrated into a consistent interface.
My question for Hakon: HTML became popular because it was so simple to use that everyone could use it. CSS by contrast is so complicated that only fulltime professionals understand it. Will CSS stay an elite thing?
Parent
Re:Why is CSS such a good idea but a pain to use? (Score:5, Interesting)
I'd like to try to turn your observation into a more specific question:
CSS is clearly very useful for separating style from content. But apparently people tend to have problems when using it for layouts. Would you say this is because people have not yet understood how to properly do layout in CSS, or is it CSS that is lacking in this area? What can be done to improve the situation? --- Would the web benefit from HTML and CSS being complemented with some kind of "layout language"?
Parent
Re:Why is CSS such a good idea but a pain to use? (Score:4, Insightful)
Vertical centering is just as important. I want to be able to (without tables) place a 500x500 box center of the window without resorting to some wierd javascript to do it. You give me a div (or p) that does this in all browsers with zero javascript and I will be impressed.
Browser support is the other issue, and it is a killer.
That said, I love the concept and most of methods, I just hate the browser wierdness.
Parent
Re:Why is CSS such a good idea but a pain to use? (Score:4, Interesting)
Vertical centering is just as important. I want to be able to (without tables) place a 500x500 box center of the window without resorting to some wierd javascript to do it. You give me a div (or p) that does this in all browsers with zero javascript and I will be impressed.
The way I usually do it is with negative margins. It's kind of a workaround, but it does work. Position the div 50% from the top and left, and then give it a negative margin-top & margin-left equal to 1/2 its own height & width respectively (in the case of 500x500, use a -250px margin) and it should center vertically.
For example, I use something like this on one of my sites:
#container {
position: absolute;
left: 50%;
top: 50%;
z-index:1;
width: 500px;
height: 500px;
margin-left: -250px;
margin-top: -250px;
}
Parent
Re:Why is CSS such a good idea but a pain to use? (Score:3)
Data transformation a la XSLT? (Score:3, Interesting)
2.) Would it be crazy to have CSS incorporate data selection and assembly? (using something like XPath -- alowing more complete segration of data and formatting.)
Included styles, aliases (Score:5, Interesting)
(For includes)(For aliases)This way we could change colors or images for a whole webpage by editing a reduced number of lines.
Had you considered any of these ideas in the past? If so, why were they rejected?
More programmically approaches of CSS (Score:3, Interesting)
ol#a *:first-child a:hover + dd, span#b *:first-child a:hover + dd {
Why is there no 'grouping' of selectors such as:
ol#a, span#b { *:first-child a:hover + dd {
And of course, there are more possibilities to greatly improve the maintainability of CSS-files; being able to define variables, or inline-calculations (eg. border-width: @var - 0.5em;
Have they not been included to keep CSS simple, or
Re:Included styles, aliases (Score:3, Informative)
For example, rather than define a variable and use it in style declarations throughout the document, you simply define one property of multiple selectors at once.
So rather than
H1 {color: col1; other-styles-here}
PRE {background-color: col1; other-styles-here}
you would, instead, write
H1, PRE {color: blah}
H1 {other-styles-here}
PRE {other-styles-here}
Now, it's not quite as elegant since it would separate logically-related style groups by forcin
CSS Evolution! (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:CSS Evolution! (Score:5, Funny)
CSS is about intelligent design, not evolution!
Parent
Horizontally aligning multiple items (Score:5, Interesting)
It's the main thing that's missing from CSS. Was it too hard to implement or write syntax for?
I'm thinking something like:
horizontal-align-to: .
eg: horizontal-align-to: #box middle top; Will align the top of this element to the middle of #box.
The same for vertical align would be nice as well. For horizontal elements restrict it to elements within a parent (and allow ID's (or use class name) to be duplicated within different parents, to make repeating multiple rows easier). For vertical it must be set on a block level element.
Alternate syntax:
On the reference element: horizontal-align-to: #name_me position;
On the to be aligned one: horizontal-align-from: #his_name position;
So:
horizontal-align-to: #rowman top;
horizontal-align-from: #rowman middle;
Will align the middle of the element, to the top of rowman.
Re:Horizontally aligning multiple items (Score:4, Interesting)
Also the top middle bottom stuff, they should take an offset: eg: middle-10px; not sure of how to write that in good CSS sytax though. And baseline, and the rest of the aligners are legal as well.
Parent
About Microsoft... (Score:5, Interesting)
equal column heights (Score:4, Interesting)
New standards (Score:5, Interesting)
Can you explain why W3C isn't sufficient, and why efforts at Opera to expand beyond the standards differ from Microsoft's embrace/extend model?
Vertical CSS Support (Score:5, Insightful)
As a developer who works with CSS every day, I find one complication that continues to bother me in my daily work. Support for CSS has always been good on the horizontal scope, but vertical positioning has always been quite complicated. Alone the procedure to affix a footer to the bottom of a screen in dependance of the amount of content is unnecessarily difficult, spawning hackish solutions such as "footerStickAlt" [themaninblue.com]. Centering an object in the dead center of a page also requires strange procedures such as this one [wpdfd.com], which still aren't ideal (try making the viewport really small). The old table method provided much easier methods for this. What are your thoughts on this and do you see improvement following in future CSS revisions?
Does CSS suck? (Score:3, Interesting)
http://www.decloak.com/Dev/CSSTables/CSS_Tables_1
"I pretty much want to kick whoever invented CSS in the nuts."
Misuse and Suggestions (Score:5, Interesting)
Should CSS be a religion? (Score:5, Interesting)
I understand the impetus behind CSS, and think it has brought some nifty things to the Web, particularly in terms of integrating with the DOM and thus helping usher in all the AJAXy goodness we're seeing lately.
But CSS also seems to have spawned an anti-HTML jihad movement of people who rail against simple but effective HTML markup, including for example the B, I and FONT tags and the TABLE. Many people seem to make the principle of separating presentation from content a religious issue.
I learned HTML in 1994 by using the View Source command in Mosaic and Netscape (beta). The simplicity of the tags made it very easy. I could keep the basic structure of a doc in my head: "<html><head><title>Home Page</title></head><body><p>Hello, <b>world</b>!</body></html>"
For all the strenghts of CSS+XHTML, they are significantly more complicated to learn than basic HTML.
Do you worry that CSS is scaring off new Web writers, espeically since basic HTML is increasingly deprecated among Web developers?
HTML5 (Score:3, Interesting)
{Gack.} (Score:5, Interesting)
Acid2 test? (Score:3, Insightful)
For your reference: http://www.webstandards.org/files/acid2/test.html [webstandards.org]
mixing inline and block elements (Score:4, Interesting)
Definition of pixel (Score:5, Interesting)
The word pixel meant "picture element", but CSS redefined it to mean something quite different (a particular subtended angle of view [w3.org]). This causes confusion: CSS pixels are not pixels. (Indeed, I have seen misinformed comments on Slashdot due to that confusion.)
My question is this: why call the subtended angle a "pixel", instead of something else (e.g. "subangle")? If CSS wanted to use the subtended angle for something, that is fine, but calling it a pixel seems to follow the approach of Humpty Dumpty—"When I use a word, it means just what I choose it to mean".
CSS for table columns? (Score:5, Interesting)
Why isn't there any easy way to style a table column in CSS?
If you're serving legitimate, tabular data, and you want to right-align column #3 (normal for numerical data), you either have to apply a class to each cell, use javascript to apply it after the fact, or use hacks like:
Which work, but are difficult to maintain when you get 10+ columns, and don't try to automatically re-arrange columns with javascript.
Why can't we just place styles on a <col> or <colgroup>, and have it cascade down?
Re:Just one question (Score:5, Interesting)
Parent
Re:Just one question (Score:5, Interesting)
Parent
Re: Two questions (Score:5, Interesting)
1. What would you most like to change with CSS? That is, if you could go back in time and change one thing in the spec and have it reflected today, what would be the most important thing?
2. If you were allowed (perhaps by court order, which wouldn't be unthinkable) to force Microsoft to do one (1) change in Internet Explorer, what would that be?
As a bonus question: What do you think of Slashdot's CSS? ;)
Parent
Re: Two questions (Score:5, Funny)
IRONY.
Parent
Re:Pronunciation (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Re:Idea? (Score:5, Funny)
Parent