Re: css layout should be symmetrical

----- Original Message -----
From: "Vadim Plessky" <lucy-ples@mtu-net.ru>


> On Wednesday 20 February 2002 19:34, Vadim Plessky wrote:
> |   On Tuesday 19 February 2002 15:33, Rob Larsen wrote:
> [...]
> |   |
> |   |   Think about the number of hybrid sites out there- CSS for text
> |   | styling and tables for layout. Why do that? Why take the time to
learn
> |   | css to style text and then ignore it when it comes to layout?
> |
> |   Good question. :-)
> |   Probbaly, those guys do not study CSS at all. They just use HTML
> | generated by FrontPage or Dreamweaver, that's it.
> |
>
> One more comment:
>
> Existing of "hybrid sites" can be explained by following:
>  *  CSS is not easy to study
>  * specs (CSS, HTML) are inconsistent (not always, but sometimes)
>  * specs are incomplete   (llok at subj: " css layout should be
symmetrical")
>
> _Why_ and _how_ it happened?
> These are different questions. Some parts of those questions have been
> answered on list already.
>
> I guess a lot of current problems with CSS caused by the fact that people
who
> were designing CSS had no Desktop Publishing (and traditional Publishing)
> expereince.
> I am subscribed to this list more than an year: and still surprised that
> there are no postings from Adobe, Quark, Macromedia, Xerox, Canon, etc.
guys.
> (not to mention producers of traditional offset presses, or new
*all-digital*
> machines)
> It seems those companies tend to ignore current CSS developement.
> How to explain this?
> a) they think CSS is not important
> b) they do not know what CSS is (at least, their Top Management)
> c) they prefer to enforce own (closed) standards
> d) they have some accounting problems, which are for sure more important
than
> CSS :-)
> e) it's not allowed to employees of those companies to post any comments
on
> servers outside the company Intranet
>
> Have I forgot something?..
>
> Waiting your comments!

I have only one, mine was a rhetorical question :)

Rob Larsen
http://drunkenfist.com
==================>

Received on Wednesday, 20 February 2002 11:26:51 UTC