- From: Matthew Wilcox <elvendil@gmail.com>
- Date: Tue, 17 Jan 2012 14:56:46 +0000
- To: Alan Gresley <alan@css-class.com>
- Cc: "www-style@w3.org Style" <www-style@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <CAMCRKiJW-7EWc5tD8kTR8YXPjFk0NEvttT4rf+5Ua-+mtVSjnw@mail.gmail.com>
> > I do find the flippancy of this a little off-putting. To be very clear: >> CSS's shoddy layout systems have been complained about, loudly, for many >> years. >> > > Can you please clarify why you believe CSS has a lousy layout system? > Anyone even vaguely familiar with layout in CSS is already familiar with this. It has been written about for many years and is front and center of most designers major wishes for improvement - innumerable blog posts and articles attest to this [1]. There's a reason that a bunch of new layout systems have been (and continue to be) developed, and why it's not just one layout system but a few. None of which are final yet. They're all trying to answer complaints about CSS layout that have been aired continually ever since CSS first overtook old-school table layouts. The number and complexity of such solutions on its own gives a strong indication of how important layout issues are (and how much demand there is for better layout capability). [1] Including: * http://24ways.org/2010/my-css-wish-list * http://css-tricks.com/css-wishlist/ In particular Shaun Inmann's very insightful comment which i agree with 100%, and Andy Clarke's comment on layout, and Eric Meyer - you have three industry heavyweights right there. Very tellingly, this link also emphasises the desire to have CSS's poor typography re-worked, by qualified typographers. * http://mattwilcox.net/archive/entry/id/991 and http://mattwilcox.net/archive/entry/id/1031/ * http://www.sitepoint.com/exploring-limits-css-layout/
Received on Tuesday, 17 January 2012 14:57:24 UTC