W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > July 2005

Re: CSS is doomed (10 years per version ?!?)

From: <Kris@meridian-ds.com>
Date: Fri, 1 Jul 2005 10:32:35 -0500
To: www-style@w3.org
Message-ID: <OFBD15746C.A502E907-ON86257031.0055618E-86257031.005561BF@meridian-ds.com>

>1) I'm not saying, abandon CSS, go MS. I never had. If I believed that
>I wouldn't be involved in the process here.
>2) Looking at what made Microsoft successful in the browser wars and
>continues to make them successful with no new versions in 4 years I
>think will lead to a better understanding of the market everyone here
>is trying to influence. Simply saying "Monopoly, monopoly, monopoly"
>is like saying the economy is solely influenced by the sale of men's
>underwear. Their monopoly is one factor. It is not the only one. Take
>a second to look at the other reasons they were successful.

Ok, Orion, let's take it from that angle now that it's more properly

CSS layout works fantastically.  I personally prefer completely static
layouts (since they virtually eliminate the need for floats) so that's how
I would to a "tabled" layout.  A clear cut definition up front that CSS
layout depends heavily on margins might help your students out in
understanding the MEANS to the goal.  I spent some time as a teacher
myself.  I understand students come in all flavors.  Sometimes the best
teaching aids don't help.

Let's define the problem here Orion.  The problem with all your MS related
statements is that we all perceive them differently.  You see MS's success
at being directly related to how well they wrote their usabiity
environment, and programming environment.  I see their success as having to
do with their backstabbing methods concerning IBM and their stealing of
technology and illegal contracts requiring it be pre-installed on machines.
(Most of which happened during the DOS days which was then and is now an
inferior product to virtually every other OS of that type)  Again, I veiw
their success as stemming from making themselves the only choice. (I'd say
monopoly but you'd say underwear... which for the record I think it's more
like saying Money runs the economy, but that's a totally different debate)

Ultimately, what I think it comes down to is this:  The vast majority of
users may trust MS today... but that will wane.  It has already begun to.
I don't trust MS as far as I can throw them.  IE alone is enough to make me
distrust them.  I still run a MS OS simply because I play so many games.
But the inherent instability of the systems they produce requires me to
completely reformat my machine religiously every 6 months or so.  (If it's
been longer than that for you, and you think I'm nuts, try it and see your
computer fly with the speed it once had)  Honestly, it's all voodoo as far
as I'm concerned, and when I CAN change to linux I will.  I'm not the
average user, so I, unfortunately, am still tied up.  Again, MS instability
is why Linux/Apache and others dominate it in the server environment.

To sum it up.  You talk mostly about usability and trust.

Usability is relative to the education you receive.  My CSS education was
largely a trial by fire.  I had to learn it so I did.  There are numerous
fantastic websites out there that show different ways to do different
things.  Finding and reading them was pretty easy.

IE's lack of support for css is the largest usability problem I see, so

And trust, well, that's earned, not stolen...  Phantoms and ghosts only
suffice for so long.  I don't trust MS today, I did once... that day is
gone.  Maybe one day you'll see it my way.  Maybe not.  But I think this
topic has degrated to the point of not mattering anymore.  Most of us see
CSS as a great utility that works wonderfully, and look forward to its
acceptance in IE (by the REAL standard... unlike IE's box standard)  You
view it as clunky and difficult.  Perhaps if you spent less time
critisizing it and more time actually using it, you'd find out that's a
non-issue.  Most things that are worth while take some time.  CSS is no
different.  This has basically boiled down to the quality over quantity
arguement.  I veiw standards as quality, and MS as quantity.  They figure
they're so big they can put out any crappy thing, advertise that it's good,
and then wait for the money to come it.  On every front MS has handled html
(just the language itself) in the most clunky stupid, bloated,
human-unreadable manner I've ever seen.  Look at word, or frontpage code
and tell me you want that crap running the web.  No thankyou sir.  No

Received on Friday, 1 July 2005 15:33:04 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 2 May 2016 14:27:19 UTC