CSS vs. all of that other nasty formatting stuff

This group introduced me to CSS, for which I am grateful. From there,
I found a couple of reference books with some basic CSS stuff but
recent issues with "width" shows that my reference material is
woefully lacking.

So two things . . .

First, any good CSS references stuff on the net that doesn't require
you to be a CSS expert *before* you read it? I'm not too lazy to do
my own searches, I just haven't found anything that was decently
written and organized. As I get older, I have less patience for
poorly written reference material and less of a willingness to slog
through it to find the benefit. It would be nice to find some
reference material that actually started at the beginning then
progressed through CSS issues in a logical manner. There oughta be a
law -- don't let geeks write the documentation!!

Secondly, this ng often contains commentary on "don't use this or that
formatting tags" yet not that many that articulate why. The reasons
aren't obvious to the uninitiated (like me). If there are meaningful
reasons beyond coding fads why, for example, tables are "bad" it would
be good to know. Recently a poster took the time and trouble to
describe why "justify" is not a good thing to use, in response to one
of my questions, and I was able exploit the power of CSS to make that
change very easily. So I had two more reasons to appreciate the value
of this ng.

At this moment, I'm trying to find a CSS alternative to using tables
to ensure that images don't roam all over the screen under different
resolutions and window sizes. Using tables, I can be reasonable sure
that my images remain nicely centered no matter how the user has
configured his/her display. If I can locate a CSS solution, so much
the better.

Help me find a decent reference source I won't be asking dumb
questions in the futue. Talk about an incentive, eh?



Peter

turn mailhot into hotmail to reply

Visit The Streamer Page at http://www.mountaincable.net/~pcharl...ers/index.html

Peter Charles

in post: <news: >
Peter Charles <> said:

> This group introduced me to CSS, for which I am grateful.

you can pay us whenever you're ready.

> From there, I found a couple of reference books

when more than enough info is on the net i find it hard to justify the
cost of a book which are usually around $50-$100 in oz.

> First, any good CSS references stuff on the net that doesn't require
> you to be a CSS expert *before* you read it?

dunno

> Secondly, this ng often contains commentary on "don't use this or that
> formatting tags" yet not that many that articulate why.

said it all before on gazillions of other posts, you get sick of
continually repeating yourself.

> The reasons aren't obvious to the uninitiated (like me).

then you just do a follow up post asking why and someone will explain or
point you at some links.

although it is surprising how many people start ranting and raving
defending their choices rather than asking why they shouldn't/should
avoid the way they're currently doing something and then rejecting the
advice/opinions/reasons if they wish.

> If there are meaningful reasons beyond coding fads

the only "coding fads" i've seen are people continually doing something
the wrong way because everyone else is doing it the wrong way.

> why, for example, tables are "bad"

tables are meant for tabular data, not layout however tables were the
only way to achieve layouts a few years ago. with browsers supporting
css there is no longer a reason to use them. you can achieve more
complex, easier to maintain, create, modify, accessible and flexible
designs using css.

people defending the use of tables for layout just lack the knowledge to
use css. they're used to the "html way" and probably use a wysinwyg
(which uses tables for layout) and have only a limited knowledge of
html. to use css effectively you need to know html.

> At this moment, I'm trying to find a CSS alternative to using tables
> to ensure that images don't roam all over the screen under different
> resolutions and window sizes.

hard to give a solution with a description like that.

> Using tables, I can be reasonable sure that my images remain nicely
> centered no matter how the user has configured his/her display. If I
> can locate a CSS solution, so much the better.

have you got a URL to the table version so people can have a look and
offer some css alternatives?

> Help me find a decent reference source

alt.html

--
brucie - i usenet nude

On Wed, 21 Jan 2004 10:52:32 +1000, brucie <****@bruciesusenetshit.info>
declared in alt.html:
>
>> Help me find a decent reference source
>
> alt.html

I'll second that. I have learnt so much more here than I have everywhere
else combined.

--
Mark Parnell
http://www.clarkecomputers.com.au

On Wed, 21 Jan 2004 10:52:32 +1000, brucie
<****@bruciesusenetshit.info> wrote:

>in post: <news: >
>Peter Charles <> said:
>
>> This group introduced me to CSS, for which I am grateful.
>
>you can pay us whenever you're ready.

I'll gladly pay you Tuesday . .
>
>> From there, I found a couple of reference books
>
>when more than enough info is on the net i find it hard to justify the
>cost of a book which are usually around $50-$100 in oz.
>
Exactly.

>> First, any good CSS references stuff on the net that doesn't require
>> you to be a CSS expert *before* you read it?
>
>dunno

Check this out:

http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/Guide/Style

Why not start with "What is a style sheet?" "Why is it useful?" "Why
is it better than oyther alternatives?", "How do I creat a style
sheet?" "How do I incorporate one in my HTML code?" "What are some
typical uses?"

Instead this guy says, "Let's start with setting the color of the text
and the background. " and I'm going, "Like, where? How? Why? etc.
etc."

It's like me trying to teach you how to tie flies for fishing by
starting with, "Mustad 9671s are good for nymphs."

>
>> Secondly, this ng often contains commentary on "don't use this or that
>> formatting tags" yet not that many that articulate why.
>
>said it all before on gazillions of other posts, you get sick of
>continually repeating yourself.

True, but I answer newbie posts in other ngs without expecting the
newbie to have done hours of research, scanning thousands of posts
that have little or nothing to do with his/her question. Too many
irrelevant posts are found in threads with a meaningful title.
Newsgroups aren't the most efficienet research tools on the planet
when you have to wade through history. Life sucks, etc. I know.
This group seems to be more reasonable and helpful than others I
inhabit -- I suppose I'm testing the limits.

>
>> The reasons aren't obvious to the uninitiated (like me).
>
>then you just do a follow up post asking why and someone will explain or
>point you at some links.

That works sometimes
>
>although it is surprising how many people start ranting and raving
>defending their choices rather than asking why they shouldn't/should
>avoid the way they're currently doing something and then rejecting the
>advice/opinions/reasons if they wish.

If a person asks for help and they don't like the answers, then all it
takes is a little class to say thanks and move on -- I agree with you.

>
>> If there are meaningful reasons beyond coding fads
>
>the only "coding fads" i've seen are people continually doing something
>the wrong way because everyone else is doing it the wrong way.

Excuse me, but I've seen fads before in other sectors of the computer
business. It's more than simple ignorance. Fads aren't about doing
things the wrong way, rather it's the bandwagon effect of the "latest
and greatest". It's obvious the CSS is vastly superior to putting
format tags all over the place but is it superior enough to go through
a lot of bother to avoid using one tag where it's needed?
>
>> why, for example, tables are "bad"
>
>tables are meant for tabular data, not layout however tables were the
>only way to achieve layouts a few years ago. with browsers supporting
>css there is no longer a reason to use them. you can achieve more
>complex, easier to maintain, create, modify, accessible and flexible
>designs using css.
>
>people defending the use of tables for layout just lack the knowledge to
>use css. they're used to the "html way" and probably use a wysinwyg
>(which uses tables for layout) and have only a limited knowledge of
>html. to use css effectively you need to know html.
>
If I had to use wysiwyg html coders, I'd probably give up -- can't
stand the damn things. I'd use a DOS text editor first.

>> At this moment, I'm trying to find a CSS alternative to using tables
>> to ensure that images don't roam all over the screen under different
>> resolutions and window sizes.
>
>hard to give a solution with a description like that.
>
>> Using tables, I can be reasonable sure that my images remain nicely
>> centered no matter how the user has configured his/her display. If I
>> can locate a CSS solution, so much the better.
>
>have you got a URL to the table version so people can have a look and
>offer some css alternatives?

http://www.mountaincable.net/~pcharl...snew/home.html

The ccs file refered to in the code only has font format info.

This page is basically a repeat from my old one. The Fishing Loop
code has to remain as is. If I don't use tables then the images can
end up flowing one after the other, occupying space wherever it's
available. Also, I've noticed that the properties of CSS elements
sometimes have unexpected affects or don't do what you expect based on
non-CSS structures. For example, H1 etc. puts in a line feed whether
you want it or not.

>
>> Help me find a decent reference source
>
>alt.html

found that one already

Peter

turn mailhot into hotmail to reply

Visit The Streamer Page at http://www.mountaincable.net/~pcharl...ers/index.html

Peter Charles wrote:
> Also, I've noticed that the properties of CSS elements
> sometimes have unexpected affects or don't do what you expect based on
> non-CSS structures. For example, H1 etc. puts in a line feed whether
> you want it or not.

Not sure how the h1 HTML element is a "CSS structure", but you can
easily make it inline like this:

h1 {
display : inline;
}

On Wed, 21 Jan 2004 02:33:39 GMT, Leif K-Brooks
<> wrote:

>Peter Charles wrote:
>> Also, I've noticed that the properties of CSS elements
>> sometimes have unexpected affects or don't do what you expect based on
>> non-CSS structures. For example, H1 etc. puts in a line feed whether
>> you want it or not.
>
>Not sure how the h1 HTML element is a "CSS structure", but you can
>easily make it inline like this:
>
>h1 {
> display : inline;
>}

Obviously, my reference sources for CSS are woefully out of date --
there's no mention of display: inline;

I'm currently wading through the CSS2 reference on w3schools.com to
see what else I'm missing.

Looks like I may have found some solutions to not using tables as
well.

Peter

turn mailhot into hotmail to reply

Visit The Streamer Page at http://www.mountaincable.net/~pcharl...ers/index.html

in post: <news: >
Peter Charles <> said:

> http://www.mountaincable.net/~pcharl...snew/home.html

http://moreshit.bruciesusenetshit.info/pw/


--
brucie - i usenet nude

In article <>, Peter Charles
<> wrote:

> It's like me trying to teach you how to tie flies for fishing by
> starting with, "Mustad 9671s are good for nymphs."

But they "are"! Gotta start somewhere and the hook's a good place if
you're not an entomologist. Long shank, straight eye from memory. I've
only tied wooly worms on a 3906 for the last ten years. Since a baby's
asleep in the room I keep my fly stuff in, I can't go see right now.
Where were we?

leo

--
<http://web0.greatbasin.net/~leo/>

Peter Charles wrote:
> On Wed, 21 Jan 2004 02:33:39 GMT, Leif K-Brooks
> <> wrote:
>>h1 {
>> display : inline;
>>}
>
>
> Obviously, my reference sources for CSS are woefully out of date --
> there's no mention of display: inline;
>
> I'm currently wading through the CSS2 reference on w3schools.com to
> see what else I'm missing.

w3schools.com is great, but I think the CSS2 Specification itself is
quite an easy read too, at least compared to other Specifications <g>:
<http://w3c.org/TR/CSS2/>


Matthias

On Wed, 21 Jan 2004 17:20:04 +1000, brucie
<****@bruciesusenetshit.info> wrote:

>in post: <news: >
>Peter Charles <> said:
>
>> http://www.mountaincable.net/~pcharl...snew/home.html
>
>http://moreshit.bruciesusenetshit.info/pw/


Thanks, I'll make use of that.

Peter

turn mailhot into hotmail to reply

Visit The Streamer Page at http://www.mountaincable.net/~pcharl...ers/index.html