Comments on: Are we getting carried away with CSS3? http://www.dave-woods.co.uk/index.php/are-we-getting-carried-away-with-css3/ Sat, 28 Jan 2012 15:57:03 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2 By: Peter Gasston http://www.dave-woods.co.uk/index.php/are-we-getting-carried-away-with-css3/comment-page-1/#comment-35 Peter Gasston Mon, 03 Sep 2007 22:18:44 +0000 http://www.dave-woods.co.uk/?p=87#comment-35 @ Dave: Please, don't worry; I didn't read this as an attack at all. @ Michael: One of the good things about CSS 3 is that it is being introduced in modular format, rather than all in one go; for example, the Selectors module is already at an advanced stage and already pretty well implemented in modern browsers. @ Dave: Please, don’t worry; I didn’t read this as an attack at all.

@ Michael: One of the good things about CSS 3 is that it is being introduced in modular format, rather than all in one go; for example, the Selectors module is already at an advanced stage and already pretty well implemented in modern browsers.

]]> By: Dave http://www.dave-woods.co.uk/index.php/are-we-getting-carried-away-with-css3/comment-page-1/#comment-34 Dave Mon, 03 Sep 2007 15:05:35 +0000 http://www.dave-woods.co.uk/?p=87#comment-34 Hi Michael, that's exactly why <a href="http://www.dave-woods.co.uk/?p=60" rel="nofollow">CSS2.2</a> would be so useful. Hi Michael, that’s exactly why CSS2.2 would be so useful.

]]> By: Michael from Pro Blog Design http://www.dave-woods.co.uk/index.php/are-we-getting-carried-away-with-css3/comment-page-1/#comment-33 Michael from Pro Blog Design Mon, 03 Sep 2007 13:44:29 +0000 http://www.dave-woods.co.uk/?p=87#comment-33 Well said. There are a few modules that I'm very excited about (The obvious ones like background+border images, and advanced selectors), but that's it. The rest isn't needed anywhere near as badly as those few modules. It's a shame that the extras are able to hold up the implementation of CSS3 for so much longer... Well said. There are a few modules that I’m very excited about (The obvious ones like background+border images, and advanced selectors), but that’s it. The rest isn’t needed anywhere near as badly as those few modules.

It’s a shame that the extras are able to hold up the implementation of CSS3 for so much longer…

]]> By: Dave http://www.dave-woods.co.uk/index.php/are-we-getting-carried-away-with-css3/comment-page-1/#comment-32 Dave Mon, 03 Sep 2007 13:26:43 +0000 http://www.dave-woods.co.uk/?p=87#comment-32 <p>@Peter, thanks for the comments.</p> <p>I appreciate that using a background image isn't ideal but the article on CSS3.info seems to suggest that this module can be used to get around the fact that browsers implement the list-style-image differently.</p> <p>It may be useful in the right situations but as you've pointed out, hopefully the way that lists are currently rendered will be looked at for CSS3 as along with forms they're probably the most difficult elements to style.</p> <p>I'm all for CSS3 and your articles on CSS3.info give me a lot of insight so please don't take this as a personal attack on yourself or CSS3. This article was aimed more to highlight that we should also be considering what fixes need to be implemented into CSS3 instead of just introducing new modules as workarounds for problems that already exist.</p> <p>@Joost, maybe that's in an ideal world but with the current implementation of CSS I don't think we're that far away apart from dealing with issues to do with lists and forms. Then the fun of different implementations across browsers of CSS3 begins :)</p> @Peter, thanks for the comments.

I appreciate that using a background image isn’t ideal but the article on CSS3.info seems to suggest that this module can be used to get around the fact that browsers implement the list-style-image differently.

It may be useful in the right situations but as you’ve pointed out, hopefully the way that lists are currently rendered will be looked at for CSS3 as along with forms they’re probably the most difficult elements to style.

I’m all for CSS3 and your articles on CSS3.info give me a lot of insight so please don’t take this as a personal attack on yourself or CSS3. This article was aimed more to highlight that we should also be considering what fixes need to be implemented into CSS3 instead of just introducing new modules as workarounds for problems that already exist.

@Joost, maybe that’s in an ideal world but with the current implementation of CSS I don’t think we’re that far away apart from dealing with issues to do with lists and forms. Then the fun of different implementations across browsers of CSS3 begins :)

]]> By: Joost de Valk http://www.dave-woods.co.uk/index.php/are-we-getting-carried-away-with-css3/comment-page-1/#comment-31 Joost de Valk Mon, 03 Sep 2007 13:19:14 +0000 http://www.dave-woods.co.uk/?p=87#comment-31 You have a valid point... But then again, consistency amongst browsers is the first thing that we'd ask for if we were granted a few wishes :) You have a valid point… But then again, consistency amongst browsers is the first thing that we’d ask for if we were granted a few wishes :)

]]> By: Peter Gasston http://www.dave-woods.co.uk/index.php/are-we-getting-carried-away-with-css3/comment-page-1/#comment-30 Peter Gasston Mon, 03 Sep 2007 11:40:24 +0000 http://www.dave-woods.co.uk/?p=87#comment-30 Hi Dave, Just to address one point you made: "A few people on CSS.info accused this of being a hack, but it’s valid code and works cross browser as far back as IE5.x so I don’t really understand the rational behind those comments especially as it’s the most commonly accepted method for currently styling a list." The key phrase there is 'most commonly accepted method for currently styling a list'; it's true, and it's not really a hack; but it IS a workaround, same as the 'sliding doors' method of styling lists; they work, they overcome problems we currently face, and they use valid CSS; they're the best way of doing something NOW, but not the best way of doing something EVER. CSS3 is a complete and definitive rewrite of the CSS standard; that means that every aspect gets looked at, not just the enhanced stuff. Styling lists is a problem, and the new Lists module is an attempt at a solution. Hi Dave,

Just to address one point you made:

“A few people on CSS.info accused this of being a hack, but it’s valid code and works cross browser as far back as IE5.x so I don’t really understand the rational behind those comments especially as it’s the most commonly accepted method for currently styling a list.”

The key phrase there is ‘most commonly accepted method for currently styling a list’; it’s true, and it’s not really a hack; but it IS a workaround, same as the ‘sliding doors’ method of styling lists; they work, they overcome problems we currently face, and they use valid CSS; they’re the best way of doing something NOW, but not the best way of doing something EVER.

CSS3 is a complete and definitive rewrite of the CSS standard; that means that every aspect gets looked at, not just the enhanced stuff. Styling lists is a problem, and the new Lists module is an attempt at a solution.

]]>