What is Digg?56 Comments
- Bogtha, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7It hasn't been "released", it's still just a draft. It's the first draft, sure, but it's probably going to be at least a year before it gets to the stage where people should be implementing it, and another year before it reaches final Recommendation status.
People don't realise, but CSS 3 isn't one specification. It's a set of specifications of varying levels of completeness. The CSS 3 Advanced Layout module is just one of a dozen or so specifications that comprise "CSS 3". Compare this first draft, for example, with something that's a lot more complete, like the CSS 3 Colors specification, which is in Candidate Recommendation status, ready for implementing, and actually implemented by some browsers.
http://www.w3.org/TR/css3-color/
This isn't the breakthrough the submitter is making it out to be, it's a very small step along a very long road, and far more significant steps have already been taken. What this means is that web developers and browser developers should review the specification to see if they can find anything wrong with it. Most people competent enough to do this are probably already subscribed to the W3C feeds and don't need Digg to tell them about it. All I can see happening now is the browser developers getting swamped with people who've read this story on Digg and somehow think that it's a good idea to ask people to implement "CSS 3" because it's "released". - joel.smith, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2"One of them claimed to find a way to do it without the special background images, yet the demo was using them!"
Google "faux columns," you should find some stuff on that. That was one of my biggest problems, as well. - mephitix, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2>> "It'll be a while before CSS becomes more than a "cool new way....
it's not new. it's been around for 5 years...
>> ... of doing something for the time being""
eh? CSS is extremely dynamic in itself. That's the whole purpose of it. You can replace stylesheets after some time or provide many at a time and allow users to switch between them. And what few people realize is the "cascading" nature of it -- the ability to have multiple stylesheets acting on a view at once, where each successive stylesheet "cascades" the previous. CSS is already widely implemented in many browsers with the exception of voice capabilities.
Maybe this is me being naive, but I believe many web developers have already accepted CSS. - Bogtha, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1@automagically,
Complain to Microsoft. CSS does make it easy to do what you want, but Microsoft never got around to implementing that part of the specification.
As for CSS layouts, you should read this:
http://positioniseverything.net/articles/onetruelayout/ - Rirath, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1"Maybe this is me being naive, but I believe many web developers have already accepted CSS."
Speaking as a web dev, I believe pretty much every web developer has accepted CSS. - worbd, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Opera support CSS3 selectors. Opera 9 at least.
- davidu, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1"Have you been waiting anxiously for news on CSS3 and its much awaited release, well the Advanced Layout Module has been released!"
No. I have, however, been waiting for run-on sentences. Thank you. Did you ask a question or make a declaration?
Just kiddin' -- Merry Christmasanukahwanzaa! - Rajio, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1forget 'a' browser supporting it, it doesnt matter unless its standard and 95%+ of your site visitors support it. standards only work when everyone sticks to them, until then, their just nice intentions. I'm still waiting on proper accross-the-board CSS2 standards implimentation! (i'm looking at you IE!)
- ompalaster, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1My site doesn't work in IE and while I can literally fix it in 5 minutes, I choose not to.
- tempusrob, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Good news indeed, but something tells me it'll be years before it's widely enough implemented to be worth using. :(
- vermin, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0We SHOULD digg this because it's extremely important. Don't think about in present terms, think that in 5-8 years CSS3 WILL BE THE STANDARD. So those of us who are developers should follow the development of CSS3 closely because in the midterm future that's what we're going to be using, so they better get it right.
- Rajio, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Oh also note that its been like 5 years and msie is still not fully supporting css2 standards?
- buss, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Wow! I cannot wait until this is widely implemented. It looks so powerful and easy!
- scarycomp, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0CSS3 will probably be supported by IE 8 "the ocho". Regardless, people will always use lame design techniques like tables for content and font tags.
- Guspaz, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0CSS2 is not even fully supported in most browsers. So excuse me if I don't care about CSS3 right now.
- Junx, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0>CSS3 will probably be supported by IE 8 "the ocho". Regardless, people will always use
>lame design techniques like tables for content and font tags.
Nice jab at IE simply using Firefox for renderring things in the future. :P
Although, I think XULRunner will be used more often in the future. That way you can run things like Firefox, Thunderbird, Sunbird, DOM Inspector, Chatzilla, etc., all as "extensions" that run on XULRunner. In that essence, IE can just use XULRunner altogether of course. - Boof, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1I'm happy to see what they have added. As for the comment regarding the "cool new way" you are an idiot. As for the comment on "I choose not to support IE" you are an idiot. That is all.
- shiftt, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0I was definitely being too broad. I was mostly referring to its ability to replace tables with tags
- rnelsonee, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0OK, before more flames start about IE sucking (believe me, I know, I'm undergoing a site redesign now), you guys need to look at this spec - it's really cool how they implement this. Scroll down to the five colored squares, and then look at the "display" selector to see how friggin' easy they'e made it.
OK, now my 2 cents - IE 7 is shaping up to support CSS pretty well. They've fixed almost all of IE 6's bugs, although they are still shy about supporting some CSS2 features (this comes from the blog, which MS developers write to rather candidly). So yeah, no fun stuff like rounded corners, and CSS3 won't be around until IE 8, which will probably be several years away. Boo. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0There wont' be a web by the time this is implemented in browsers.
- ompalaster, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Dugg! I love CSS. :)
- goldenratiophi, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Nice! Only about 5 years untill IE supports it!
- rolandog, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0@rirath
Indeed... the trend in xhtml itself is to use only CSS to style the documents. - chillypepper, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0"It'll be a while before CSS becomes more than a "cool new way of doing something for the time being""
CSS is not a fad. its not going away. It IS pretty much accepted by everyone as rirath said. - Junx, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0I wouldn't mind if IE7 was actually good provided they didn't dominate the market share. I don't mind Opera because it isn't a monopolistic browser and at least supports standards pretty well. I prefer Firefox over any other browser, but to each his own.
- Echo5ive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0I looked at the spec for 15 seconds, and realized how INCREDIBLY easy it will make it to make a div with rounded corners. Makes me all giddy inside.
- FuManchu, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Agreed: this is just another step forward, not a leap.
Kudos to ompalaster!
On the few pages I've written for people, I make it a point to be W3C compliant for xhtml & css. And I do columns and drop-down & fly-out menus for navigation with no tables or java. And I always put a link to a special page "If You're Using MS Internet Explorer or another non-standard browser" with links discussing the W3C standards issues, and links to DL both Firefox and Opera.
Granted, I'm not earning my daily bread designing websites. So I can afford to take a stand:
If you want to look at these pages, use a standard browser.
Similarly, for my private browsing, if I hit a site that will only render for IE users --piss on 'em. I move on.
End of rant.
Merry Christmas to All!
'Tis the season to be jolly!
"Fu la-la-la-la, la-la la la!" - SpookyET, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0We need a virus that patches IE to use the Gecko rendering engine. Yes, it's possible. There already exist a patching app that makes apps use gecko instead of IE.
- Bogtha, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0@worbd,
> "IE 7 is shaping up to support CSS pretty well. They've fixed almost all of IE 6's bugs"
>
> SAY WHAT?!
>
> What on earth do you base that outrageous assumption on?!
The postings on the IEBlog:
http://blogs.msdn.com/ie/archive/2005/07/29/445242.aspx
They've fixed almost all the *bugs* present in Internet Explorer 6, and they've implemented around half of what Internet Explorer 6 lacks in terms of CSS 2.1 support.
@dasch,
> I think it's a good idea for browser developers to implement these things early
The W3C don't. Did you read the spec? Right at the top it says:
"Publication as a Working Draft does not imply endorsement by the W3C Membership. This is a draft document and may be updated, replaced or obsoleted by other documents at any time. It is inappropriate to cite this document as other than work in progress."
The W3C only say that people should start implementing their specifications when they reach Candidate Recommendation status. This draft could be years away from that.
@Bloodwine,
> Sure many CSS designs can degrade gracefully, but let's be honest ... those styles are usually on the simpler side (in terms of simple, clean visual interface).
That's not true. I suspect you mean something other than "degrade gracefully". Degrading gracefully doesn't mean "works identically in older browsers". It means "works in older browsers". A typical strategy with older browsers such as Netscape 4 is to simply hide all styling from them. So long as you are doing things properly and writing HTML that doesn't rely on a particular presentation, things will work just fine. And this is pretty easy even with the most complex CSS designs.
> HTML tables, on the other hand, work the same in every browser (minus NS4.x that has inheritance issues).
Not true in the slightest. Do you not remember the complaints when Netscape 7 came out? The same thing happened with a version of Opera. And Internet Explorer has whitespace bugs that affect table layouts too. Some browsers have problems when you omit the optional closing tags too. That's not counting browsers like Lynx, or how browsers like JAWS or IBM Homepage Reader react.
The idea that table layouts are reliable is a popular myth, not based in fact.
@xotx69:
> There's nothing implemented at the moment. My personal interest is the CSS3 selectors module.
The latest versions of Gecko, KHTML and Opera all implement CSS 3 selectors. - Bogtha, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0@worbd,
I agreed with the statement that they've fixed almost all the CSS bugs in Internet Explorer 6. To back it up, I provided a link to the developers' blog, where they've listed the bugs that they have fixed. Any web developer with more than a few weeks experience will recognise these bugs. Any web developer with more than a few months experience knows that these are the majority of them.
There is never likely to be an exhaustive bug list, and even if there was, you would claim that it was incomplete. However, members of the community with considerable experience and credibility have compiled incomplete lists of bugs, and the list of fixed bugs covers these. You would know this had you finished reading the link I provided and checked out the references, which, in a pinch, will substitute for the web development experience you seem to be sorely lacking.
So far, all you have done is hurl insults and accusations without being able to list a single bug that hasn't been fixed. If you were a web developer, it would be easy to do so. Your credibility is zero. Unless you have something further to add beyond hot air, this argument is over. - Metal_Hurlant, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0At the risk of paraphrasing a comment above:
- This is a *draft*, not a final spec. The final spec is likely to differ significantly from this (as well as having less "hmm this doesn't quite work. fix me later" remarks.)
- Another comment mentions how "easy" it makes it to have rounded div. This is a bit like discovering a toothbrush and exclaming "It is going to be much easier to clean my floor now!". If there's a need for roundness, it probably needs to be implemented as "corner-radius: 1em 3px;", where the 2 params represent the vertical and horizontal radius. Mozilla has something vaguely similar as a proprietary extension already.
- Am I the only who finds it funny that the whole proposal is mostly a re-syntaxing of plain old HTML tables? CSS-2 already has ways to keep the table markup hidden with their "display: table-cell;" and related properties.
The main difference between CSS-2 and this CSS-3 draft is the ability to have a semantic markup totally unrelated to the display structure. I guess that's hot in some circles. I wonder if CSS can stay simpler than XSL while going down that path. - HeroreV, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0"There is no CSS table killer. It looks like CSS3 isn't addressing it either. A spaghetti mess of floating div's, while separating content from presentation, seems to get just as ugly as nested tables when trying to do more complex layouts."
Did you not even take a look at the dugg link? RTFA - jasp, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0It's not the final release, and it still needs alot of work IMHO, but at least it's progress.
"Speaking as a web dev, I believe pretty much every web developer has accepted CSS."
As a webmaster myself, if I meet a web dev that doesnt use CSS, I tell him/her that he isn't a real web developer. Knowing and using CSS well is a requirement to making pages that don't suck.
"Am I the only who finds it funny that the whole proposal is mostly a re-syntaxing of plain old HTML tables?"
Yeah, just what I was thinking. And the syntax to Template-based positioning is horrible ATM. - worbd, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0
.
.
.
"IE 7 is shaping up to support CSS pretty well. They've fixed almost all of IE 6's bugs"
SAY WHAT?!
What on earth do you base that outrageous assumption on?!
.
.
. - Bogtha, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0> You are wrong because they have NOT fixed "almost all the bugs". Give me a break.
Again, if you want to say that, please list the bugs that haven't been fixed. There's no point making claims like that without backing them up.
> If you are right then IE7 will be the most standards compliant browser on the planet
No, there's a difference between bugs and not implementing something. The original comment you objected to made the distinction, my replies to you made the distinction, and the IEBlog posting you are trying to contradict me with made the distinction. You didn't notice that we are all talking about bugs and standards compliance as two different things? - dasch, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0I think it's a good idea for browser developers to implement these things early, though maybe with a browser-specific prefix (i.e. "-moz".) Many errors in these specs are only found when they've been implemented.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0^^ From the beta testing of version 7?.. it would be cool..
Kiltak
Merry Christmas from http://geeksaresexy.blogspot.com - gwarm02, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Question for Diggers:
What WYSIWYG PROGRAM can I use to make CSS based webpages? Dreamweaver MX doesn't work to well (don't say notepad). - Bloodwine, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0The problem with CSS is that those of us that want to support as many browsers as possible seem to run into lots of obstacles. Sure many CSS designs can degrade gracefully, but let's be honest ... those styles are usually on the simpler side (in terms of simple, clean visual interface).
And to my horror, there are people out there still using Netscape 4.x. Some say those people should upgrade, but some clients demand accessibility in all browsers. Many CSS designs are rather unusable in older browsers.
The other problem with CSS is that every browser seems to have different CSS bugs, without fail. No browser gets everything right, and they all get different things wrong.
HTML tables, on the other hand, work the same in every browser (minus NS4.x that has inheritance issues). Yes, tables are meant for tabular data, but they have been molested for layout and the lid cannot be put back on that can. There is no CSS table killer. It looks like CSS3 isn't addressing it either. A spaghetti mess of floating div's, while separating content from presentation, seems to get just as ugly as nested tables when trying to do more complex layouts. - worbd, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0BTW, YOU are the one claiming that they've fixed almost all bugs, so YOU produce the evidence to support YOUR claim. Don't expect other people to find YOUR evidence FOR YOU.
- xotx69, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Like Bogtha said, this is one of many modules. All you can do is window shop. There's nothing implemented at the moment. My personal interest is the CSS3 selectors module. http://www.w3.org/TR/2001/CR-css3-selectors-20011113/
- Bogtha, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0By all means, list the bugs that you want fixed in Internet Explorer 7 that aren't on that list. In my experience, pretty much every *bug* that web developers run across on a frequent basis is on that list.
I'm sure to the average non-developer, it might seem that there's a distinction to be made between "as many as we can" and "almost all", but any experienced web developer knows the kind of weird bugs Internet Explorer is prone to exhibit, and that list contains a hell of a lot of them.
If you disagree, then explain why I'm wrong. Saying I'm full of crap is a pointless flame. - Bogtha, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0> No one in Microsoft has ever stated that they have "fixed almost all bugs".
I've already pointed you to a list of the bugs they've fixed, published by the Internet Explorer developers. What bugs are you thinking of that don't appear on that list? If I'm so obviously full of *****, then surely you'll be able to come up with a long list of unfixed bugs.
Or are you just a flaming idiot who doesn't know WTF he is talking about? Unless you start listing bugs, it looks very much like the latter is true. Can you even name a single bug they haven't fixed? They are certainly there; I never said they've fixed all of them. It should be easy to at least show you have half a clue. So go ahead. - trimidium, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0I spend so much time just making things work in IE now that I comply to standards, but am Happy to report that only 42% of the traffic to my website over the last few months has been from Internet Explorer. 24% firefox, 21% netscape. everything else is just in tiny percentages. Last year I had something like 83% IE...
What would really make the web a better place is if IE updated as often as firefox. Where when there were bugs, non-supported standards etc that a new update would just appear on windows update. I mean why do they feel they have to wait until a new +1 version is released before they can fix the bugs!
CSS is as common today as basic html. CSS3 is fantastic, but standard changes are SO SLOW and will be unusable for years to come until microsoft starts updating their browser like this.
Trimidium
http://www.thesmartass.info/ - HeroreV, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0"CSS-2 already has ways to keep the table markup hidden with their "display: table-cell;" and related properties."
What if the elements aren't in the same order in the markup that you want to display them as? And grids can create much more complicated designs than just equal-height columns.
"If there's a need for roundness, it probably needs to be implemented as "corner-radius: 1em 3px;", where the 2 params represent the vertical and horizontal radius. Mozilla has something vaguely similar as a proprietary extension already."
The February 2005 Working Draft of the CSS3 Backgrounds and Borders Module already has the border-radius property. See http://www.w3.org/TR/2005/WD-css3-background-20050216/
"The TWO MAJOR things I think CSS needs right now are the ability to create gradients from one hex color to another, and rounded corners."
Stetchable gradients will be possible with SVG and the background-size property, or by using multiple background images. A single element can now have multiple background images, so extra markup won't be needed to go that route. (And in good browsers, images can be included inline in the stylesheet with data URIs.) - worbd, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0You are wrong because they have NOT fixed "almost all the bugs". Give me a break.
If you are right then IE7 will be the most standards compliant browser on the planet, and this obviously won't happen. - DJSdotcom, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0The advanced layout module looks like it's making things too easy for new CSS coders... stuff like display: tab; just rubs me the wrong way because as soon as CSS rules start to define tons of styles at once, then you'll just have to overwrite more defaults to get the look you are going for.
And I have no clue what anybody is thinking when they talk about how big CSS will be "in a few years." Obviously they don't work in the real design industry. Standards-based designs are now expected by clients, but maybe the naysaying commenters on this thread are still doing work for their local pizza place and churches and use Publisher 98 for writing l33t code.
Happy holidayz suckaz ;) - worbd, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0"I've already pointed you to a list of the bugs they've fixed, published by the Internet Explorer developers."
Oooh, the IE team posted a list of bugs, so that must mean that these are all of them!
Moron. - worbd, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0Bogtha, you are full of *****, and this "fixed almost all bugs" has been pulled out of someone's ass. No one in Microsoft has ever stated that they have "fixed almost all bugs".
-
Show 51 - 55 of 55 discussions
Browsing Digg on your phone just got easier with our enhancements to the 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is