Q: Hi, I wanted to ask what would be the best and easiest way to learn CSS. I would like to learn CSS, so I can use it on my website. Thanks
A: I would draw a distinction between "errors" that are beneficial/benign (ie do not negatively affect the rendering of a document in target ua's or may even be necessary/desirable) and those that are "malignant" (can break pages in target ua's). A validator is just a tool...like a shovel, screwdriver, washing machine, etc. Tools can be misused. This was the gist of my post. So far you seem to have fixated on my quoting practices and semantics without addressing my views directly. Repeat to yourself 30 times: all squares are rectangles but not all rectangles are squares.. I don't find fault with validating per se (using it as you do to catch a missing semicolon or extra quote here or there is great)...it's the mindless worship of the abstract concept of dtd's and validation in itself that bothers me. Being realistic, documents that validate (against html, xhtml, and xml dtd's and css-wise) will often "break" in widely-used browsers (XML support is a topic for another day). This is because of the gap between standards and standards support. The CSS-1 spec became a recommendation in 1996 and we all know how well it's been implemented. The situation is improving but slooooowwwwlllly. I'm pro-standards myself... I browse with mozilla m16 at the moment and have submitted a few bug reports. I've even bitched once or twice on mozilla ng's when I think I see them carrying forward some wierd junk from the netscape days (example: the continued use of the embed tag). When mozilla 1.0 is released, I will be using it. Unfortunately, given the new-app-adoption rate of web users...it will be a couple of years later before enough of the rest of the world is using it or netscape 6, if they stay on a standards-compliant course and don't diverge from the mozilla tree too quickly, or msie 6, assuming that they get their act together. In the mean time, we have to code for the browsers that are with an eye to the browsers that will be. Having a working knowledge of the faults and idiosyncracies of present-day browsers is usually more helpful than validation. Knowing that your work conforms to specs is cold comfort if it "breaks" for a huge chunk of your audience. These are the same clueless code tweakers who would suddenly be endowed with enlightenment and machinelike consistency were they to peruse the little binder nailed up by the cappuccino machine, is that right? I have so much direct evidence to the contrary, I'm a little disappointed with myself that I bother to rebut these gratuitously contrarian assertions of yours. Earlier in this thread you acknowledge the usefulness of validation, but now it's a false religion you are out to overthrow.
Most Popular Articles
- Gold Celtic Ring
- Real Estate
- Mechanical Engineering