Re: Well done on new devel pages
>> Josip Rodin <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> > CSS is *good*. It lets you achieve your v i s u a l t r i c k s
> > (looks awful, doesn't it?)
> It doesn't. :)
It does. Unless used with fonts that are designed for it, changing the
default kerning often confuses the reader. It works fine if your words
are given a generous ammount of surrounding whitespace (or if you are
going for that dada effect, but then why am I even writing this?).
> Errr, what about lynx, links or w3m? Last I checked they didn't
> support it, either.
Which is exactly the point. CSS deals mostly with visual appearence
changes that only make sense if you have the luxury of scalable and
variable width fonts. There is stuff in CSS which *could* be handled
by text mode browsers (justification, some forms of leading,
indentation, even margings perhaps) but most of it doesn't make sense
for such a browser.
> So you'd have to make it look good with and without CSS
"look good without CSS". That's the mistake most web "designers" make.
With HTML you express your document's structure, not your document's
appearance. That's one of the reasons I hate <b> so much. It's
> And, verifying CSS stuff looks bearable in four non-compliant
> browsers is harder than doing the same for tables in Lynx.
If your document looks plain wrong in Lynx, you probably took a wrong
turn somewhere along the path. (modulo tables used in the intended