Re: PLEASE STOP - CSS tags being removed from version to version

Last group of people I saw using "LOL" was a group of 15 year-old boys 
talking about Lohan's ****.

I've already added who I am to the bottom of my email. My name is Amber 
and I'm a 33 year-old web designer just like many others that 
communicate through here. Need some work done Mac? I'll gladly give you 
my number.

What I'm talking about?
Through many years of watching how CSS has been progressing through the 
years, I've noticed that certain tags and elements that I've used and 
that I know others have used are being removed from future versions of CSS.
A few of these are, but not limited to:
The "clear" property for the psuedo elements, :first-letter and 
:first-line is in CSS2 only; was removed in CSS2.1.
The "text-shadow" property for both pseudo elements, :first-letter and 
:first-line is in CSS2 only.
CSS2 introduced a way to exert much greater control over font matching 
through a @font-face rule. Since no web browsers had fully implemented 
this rule as of spring 2003, @font-face was removed from CSS2.1.
Also, the following properties, listed below, appeared in CSS2 but were 
dropped from CSS2.1 due to a lack of widespread support.

Visual Styles:
font-size-adjust
font-stretch
marker-offset
text-shadow

Paged Media:
marks
page
size

Aural Styles:
azimuth
cue
cue-after
cue-before
elevation
pause
pause-after
pause-before
pitch
pitch-range
play-during
richness
speak
speak-header
speak-numeral
speak-punctuation
speech-rate
stress
voice-family
volume

The problem is that when there are people that are using elements given 
to us to use, we use them trusting that they'll be there for the long-term.
When we  tell clients that CSS is the best thing since sliced bread and 
they should redo their websites using CSS, we use these elements and 
properties while creating them and later on down the road we end up 
finding out that some elements we used while creating half a dozen 
clients sites need redoing because this version of CSS has removed a 
handful of elements that I had used while creating a handful of past sites.

It just ends up creating a problem for the web designers and the ones 
paying for the web design.

Amber.


Mac Joseph wrote:
> First of all, who are you, and please, WHAT THE HELL ARE YOU TALKING 
> ABOUT?
>  
> Kindest Regards; LOL
>  
> MJW
>
> */amber <amber@ambrosia.lt>/* wrote:
>
>     The elements that I'm referring to are any elements that are added
>     for a CSS version, then in the next version, taken out.
>
>     What about the people that _do_ use the elements? Some people
>     create very large sites and use the elements that are available,
>     then when those elements are taken out, removed, during the next
>     version - that person has to then redesign the entire site,
>     depending on the element used.
>
>     I spend quite a bit of time getting work by telling the clients
>     about all of the benefits of using CSS.
>     How do I explain to my client that he needs to fork out another
>     few hundred dollars because I need to redesign a site because the
>     element I used is now unavailable and that's why his site doesn't
>     "look" like it once did?
>     I surely can't redesign the site on my dime, but it would only
>     seem right because I chose to use the tags that someone decided to
>     remove in a later version because it wasn't "widely used"...
>
>     Just because an element isn't widely used doesn't mean that it
>     isn't used at all.
>
>     I've read through some manuals that described an element that I
>     thought to myself about all the great things I could do with it,
>     just to find out that it was taken out because it wasn't used or
>     widely known about by enough people.
>     How does the W3C know how many people are and aren't using an
>     element? Just because someone doesn't validate all of their pages
>     doesn't mean that they _don't_ use the tags given to them to use.
>
>     The W3C provides us with elements that provide great functionality
>     and that can be modified and expanded on in the future. I do
>     appreciate that and I know many others do, as well. But please do
>     not take away an element just because it doesn't "seem" to be
>     being used by many.
>
>     Thanks.
>
>     Amber.
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Boardwalk for $500? In 2007? Ha!
> Play Monopoly Here and Now 
> <http://us.rd.yahoo.com/evt=48223/*http://get.games.yahoo.com/proddesc?gamekey=monopolyherenow> 
> (it's updated for today's economy) at Yahoo! Games.