Re: The use of CSS

Thank you for your arguments for CSS. I think many people are reluctant to
use css because they do not know how to use them so that they can be
compatible with most browsers. If you use a css that works with the last
versions of Internet Explorer, those may not work with older versions of
this browser and with Netscape. We experienced that with a CSS that wirked
under IE but not under netscape. What should we recommend then? 
I think that Marja's proposal to make a document about the use of CSS is a
good idea and a necessary thing. 
Regards
Sylvie
A 17:15 01/03/2000 -0500, Charles McCathieNevile a écrit :
>Often this argument is simply false - many browsers also do not support Java
>or Javascript or animation effects or frames or many other effects.
>
>It is important to use things in a way which means they do not break down for
>some people. So using CSS for layout control needs to be done in such a way
>that a browser which does not support CSS will still provide an appropriate
>layout.
>
>Many browsers do support CSS. Netscape, Internet Explorer, Emacs-W3, Opera,
>Neoplanet, the ICE browser component, Mozilla, and others all provide good
>support. And if people are using a browser that doesn't, such as Braillesurf,
>lynx, very old versions of Explorer/Netscape, etc then it is very likely to
>be because they don't care about layout presentation.
>
>Charles McCN
>
>On Wed, 1 Mar 2000, Sylvie Duchateau wrote:
>
>  Hello all,
>  We recently recommended to a webmaster to use the CSS for the layout of his
>  site. 
>  He answerded he could not take this recommendation into acount because many
>  browsers do not support CSS. 
>  What should we argue to convince him to use them. 
>  Thank you in advance
>  Sylvie Duchateau
>  
>
>--
>Charles McCathieNevile    mailto:charles@w3.org    phone: +61 (0) 409 134 136
>W3C Web Accessibility Initiative                      http://www.w3.org/WAI
>Location: I-cubed, 110 Victoria Street, Carlton VIC 3053
>Postal: GPO Box 2476V, Melbourne 3001,  Australia 
>
>
>

Received on Thursday, 2 March 2000 04:54:12 UTC