Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Programming > HTML > CSS Overblown

Reply
Thread Tools

CSS Overblown

 
 
JohnWMpls
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-29-2005
I get the feeling that css is getting out of control. I code at the
HTML level and use css to simplify the coding and keep visual uniformity
in a site. But I look at css code created by some conversion programs
and, wow, the result is precise but what an excess of code - the
overcomplexity makes it difficult to read and understand the code.

A year or so ago I started using MS Word 2003 to read .doc files people
sent me - to save as HTML for posting. Files sizes ballooned - full of
css stuff. I went back to using MS Word 98 for this - nice clean HTML
code. {g}

JohnW-Mpls

 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Rob_W
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-29-2005
JohnWMpls wrote:
> I get the feeling that css is getting out of control. I code at the
> HTML level and use css to simplify the coding and keep visual uniformity
> in a site. But I look at css code created by some conversion programs
> and, wow, the result is precise but what an excess of code - the
> overcomplexity makes it difficult to read and understand the code.
>
> A year or so ago I started using MS Word 2003 to read .doc files people
> sent me - to save as HTML for posting. Files sizes ballooned - full of
> css stuff. I went back to using MS Word 98 for this - nice clean HTML
> code. {g}
>
> JohnW-Mpls
>


Don't blame css, blame Word
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Blinky the Shark
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-29-2005
JohnWMpls wrote:

> I get the feeling that css is getting out of control. I code at the
> HTML level and use css to simplify the coding and keep visual
> uniformity in a site. But I look at css code created by some
> conversion programs and, wow, the result is precise but what an excess
> of code - the overcomplexity makes it difficult to read and understand
> the code.


> A year or so ago I started using MS Word 2003 to read .doc files
> people sent me - to save as HTML for posting. Files sizes ballooned
> - full of css stuff. I went back to using MS Word 98 for this - nice
> clean HTML code. {g}


None of that is an indictment of CSS. All of that is an indictment of
Word.

--
Blinky Linux Registered User 297263
Killing all Usenet posts from Google Groups
Info: http://blinkynet.net/comp/uip5.html
*ALSO contains links for access to the NON-BETA GG archive interface*
 
Reply With Quote
 
Hywel Jenkins
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-29-2005
In article <(E-Mail Removed)>,
http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/(E-Mail Removed) says...
> I get the feeling that css is getting out of control. I code at the
> HTML level and use css to simplify the coding and keep visual uniformity
> in a site. But I look at css code created by some conversion programs
> and, wow, the result is precise but what an excess of code - the
> overcomplexity makes it difficult to read and understand the code.
>
> A year or so ago I started using MS Word 2003 to read .doc files people
> sent me - to save as HTML for posting. Files sizes ballooned - full of
> css stuff. I went back to using MS Word 98 for this - nice clean HTML
> code. {g}


Whooosh! You seem to be suggesting that you trusted MS Word 03's
capability to produce sensible code. You silly boy.

--
Hywel

Kill the Crazy Frog
http://www.petitiononline.com/crzyfrg/
 
Reply With Quote
 
dorayme
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-30-2005
> From: JohnWMpls <(E-Mail Removed)>

> A year or so ago I started using MS Word 2003 to read .doc files people
> sent me - to save as HTML for posting. Files sizes ballooned - full of
> css stuff. I went back to using MS Word 98 for this - nice clean HTML
> code. {g}



There are one or two docs for which I have used MS Word 98 to get a rough
HTML layout for and it is a mess. But a *much better mess* to clean up than
with later MS Words... So, I sort of agree with you, seriously.

dorayme

 
Reply With Quote
 
dorayme
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-30-2005
> From: dorayme <(E-Mail Removed)>

>> From: JohnWMpls <(E-Mail Removed)>

>
>> A year or so ago I started using MS Word 2003 to read .doc files people
>> sent me - to save as HTML for posting. Files sizes ballooned - full of
>> css stuff. I went back to using MS Word 98 for this - nice clean HTML
>> code. {g}

>
>
> There are one or two docs for which I have used MS Word 98 to get a rough
> HTML layout for and it is a mess. But a *much better mess* to clean up than
> with later MS Words... So, I sort of agree with you, seriously.



I should add, I suppose, that I agree with comments by others (now that I
have read them) that css is not at fault so much as the crazy use of it in
later MS Word. To tell the truth, 98 is better because one can then css
style the "cleaner" html that you see in a more rational manner.

dorayme

 
Reply With Quote
 
JohnWMpls
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-30-2005
On Mon, 30 May 2005 10:18:54 +1000, dorayme <(E-Mail Removed)>
wrote:

=>> From: dorayme <(E-Mail Removed)>
=>
=>>> From: JohnWMpls <(E-Mail Removed)>
=>>
=>>> A year or so ago I started using MS Word 2003 to read .doc files people
=>>> sent me - to save as HTML for posting. Files sizes ballooned - full of
=>>> css stuff. I went back to using MS Word 98 for this - nice clean HTML
=>>> code. {g}
=>>
=>>
=>> There are one or two docs for which I have used MS Word 98 to get a rough
=>> HTML layout for and it is a mess. But a *much better mess* to clean up than
=>> with later MS Words... So, I sort of agree with you, seriously.
=>
=>
=>I should add, I suppose, that I agree with comments by others (now that I
=>have read them) that css is not at fault so much as the crazy use of it in
=>later MS Word. To tell the truth, 98 is better because one can then css
=>style the "cleaner" html that you see in a more rational manner.
=>
=>dorayme

Interesting - not CSS but Word. It's maybe really Microsoft. What
triggered my comment was a conversion I did from MS's Publisher to HTML -
and if you think Word 2003 was bad,....! {g}

But MS is maybe not alone. Mozilla's new Composer provides the option for
code in css or HTML and it is defaulted to css.

I think css is great. I maintain a few sites with a couple hundred pages
each and just one simple 12-15 line .css file per site sure saves a lot of
coding on all the pages.

I'm an old guy and I'm guessing that some newer people think css is the
only way - regardless of how complicated it can make things.

JohnW-Mpls

 
Reply With Quote
 
Mark Parnell
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-30-2005
Previously in alt.html, JohnWMpls <(E-Mail Removed)> said:

> What
> triggered my comment was a conversion I did from MS's Publisher to HTML -
> and if you think Word 2003 was bad,....! {g}


I've seen Publisher's output, and yes - it's horrendous. Ever tried
Excel? Richard (rf) had a page done in Excel up at one point...wonder
whether I can find the URL...?

<a few minutes later>

Ah, found the URL, but the page is no longer up.

--
Mark Parnell
http://www.clarkecomputers.com.au
alt.html FAQ :: http://html-faq.com/
 
Reply With Quote
 
SpaceGirl
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-31-2005
JohnWMpls wrote:
> On Mon, 30 May 2005 10:18:54 +1000, dorayme <(E-Mail Removed)>
> wrote:
>
> =>> From: dorayme <(E-Mail Removed)>
> =>
> =>>> From: JohnWMpls <(E-Mail Removed)>
> =>>
> =>>> A year or so ago I started using MS Word 2003 to read .doc files people
> =>>> sent me - to save as HTML for posting. Files sizes ballooned - full of
> =>>> css stuff. I went back to using MS Word 98 for this - nice clean HTML
> =>>> code. {g}
> =>>
> =>>
> =>> There are one or two docs for which I have used MS Word 98 to get a rough
> =>> HTML layout for and it is a mess. But a *much better mess* to clean up than
> =>> with later MS Words... So, I sort of agree with you, seriously.
> =>
> =>
> =>I should add, I suppose, that I agree with comments by others (now that I
> =>have read them) that css is not at fault so much as the crazy use of it in
> =>later MS Word. To tell the truth, 98 is better because one can then css
> =>style the "cleaner" html that you see in a more rational manner.
> =>
> =>dorayme
>
> Interesting - not CSS but Word. It's maybe really Microsoft. What
> triggered my comment was a conversion I did from MS's Publisher to HTML -
> and if you think Word 2003 was bad,....! {g}
>
> But MS is maybe not alone. Mozilla's new Composer provides the option for
> code in css or HTML and it is defaulted to css.
>
> I think css is great. I maintain a few sites with a couple hundred pages
> each and just one simple 12-15 line .css file per site sure saves a lot of
> coding on all the pages.
>
> I'm an old guy and I'm guessing that some newer people think css is the
> only way - regardless of how complicated it can make things.
>
> JohnW-Mpls
>


CSS *is* the only way if you want as much control as possible over the
end users "experience" (aguably, along with CSS and Flash). But all of
these technologys can be misused - just like HTML itself. If a program
(or a designer!) generates crappy HTML it's not the fault of HTML either

Microsoft Office apps are well known for generating awful HTML from the
psuedo-XML format the documents are stored in natively. You should avoid
using them for ANYTHING other than office type work. If you want to
publish to WWW, convert your docs to PDF and simply link to them from a
hand-designed page - or, if you know your stuff, use DreamWeaver, but
again be warned, if you are inexperienced you'll make a mess in that too.

CSS doesn't have to be complex to work well... we have some pretty HUGE
sites with less than 1kb of fairly simple CSS controlling the entire
look & feel. The resulting UI is complex and powerful, but the CSS is
simple.
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
CSS Layout question - how to duplicate a table layout with CSS Eric ASP .Net 4 12-24-2004 04:54 PM
confused - html validates, css validates but validate css from the html causes errors Titus A Ducksass - AKA broken-record HTML 6 11-15-2004 12:59 PM
Set CSS property equal to another CSS property? Noozer HTML 10 10-13-2004 09:20 PM
Is there a way to set the a CSS property to be explicitly the same as another CSS property? Joshua Beall HTML 1 12-10-2003 07:21 PM
print.css and screen.css tom watson HTML 1 09-09-2003 02:48 PM



Advertisments