Seeing as the OP is looking to *learn* CSS it would have been better had
you pointed him to w3school's CSS tutorial: http://www.w3schools.com/css/css_intro.asp With an added warning that it
contains errors and that w3schools has no affiliation with w3c.
Outstanding book for beginners, and great to leave on the shelf for a
Cascading Style Sheets: The Definitive Guide, 2nd Edition
You can find it at Amazon.com
Jukka K. Korpela
Spartanicus <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> For a *reference* only the w3c spec will do.
Well, for some definition of "reference". The problem is that the W3C
doesn't work like a standards body. Take a look at http://www.w3.org/Style/CSS/#specs
titled "CSS Specifications". What have we got here?
CSS 3 is _under development_ (actually, a collection of drafts)
CSS 2.1 is "candidate recommendation"
CSS 1 is the good old specification approved in 1996, later
modified in 1999, never actually implemented as such, and
in some essential ways in conflict with CSS 2 (though
most a subset thereof)
So where's CSS 2? They don't even bother mentioning it there.
It _is_ a W3C recommendation, but you need to find it through other
paths, and this gives a hint of the W3C's real position on it.
May I suggest that next time you feel the urge to have a moan about
something you start a separate thread. Follow ups should be relevant to
what you are replying to.
> "Jukka K. Korpela" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>>For a *reference* only the w3c spec will do.
> [Moan deleted]
> May I suggest that next time you feel the urge to have a moan about
> something you start a separate thread. Follow ups should be relevant to
> what you are replying to.