TechWhirl (TECHWR-L) is a resource for technical writing and technical communications professionals of all experience levels and in all industries to share their experiences and acquire information.
For two decades, technical communicators have turned to TechWhirl to ask and answer questions about the always-changing world of technical communications, such as tools, skills, career paths, methodologies, and emerging industries. The TechWhirl Archives and magazine, created for, by and about technical writers, offer a wealth of knowledge to everyone with an interest in any aspect of technical communications.
Yes, I like CSS, very much. I especially like the fact that the look and
feel of all pages in a site can be changed with one fail swoop. I am
troubled by the differing implementations of CSS by Netscape and Microsoft
from IE/Nav 4, 4.5, and 5 and, consequently, do test with each browser and
also add FONT tags if needed.
Much of the use of CSS, Javascript, and particular browser support, etc., is
defined up front by a customer and the customer's intended audience. For
example, today I listened in on a presentation about a web site design that
is entirely geared towards the Microsoft product line, in all forms OS
implementation including Javascript, applets, active server pages, et al.
This can be done because the audience is captive and every single one of the
customers has already bought into a Microsoft-based operating environment,
from the OS on down through applications (almost like an intranet). In this
case, there is no possibility at all of needing to support such as UNIX,
MAC, Netscape, Novell . . ..
Wouldn't it be wonderful if, instead, the browser developers were held
captive to the pure HTML standard despite its limitations. That way, we
could be certain of what our customers would see . . . <g>.
However, the nature of our business is adapt and overcome, take what we have
learned and adapt it to the situation at hand.
Sean
sean -at- quodata -dot- com
>>>-----Original Message-----
>>>From: Huber, Mike [mailto:mrhuber -at- SOFTWARE -dot- ROCKWELL -dot- COM]
>>>Sent: Thursday, April 08, 1999 11:22 AM
>>>To: TECHWR-L -at- LISTSERV -dot- OKSTATE -dot- EDU
>>>Subject: Re: html editor questions
>>>
>>>
>>>Brierley, Sean [mailto:Brierley -at- QUODATA -dot- COM]
>>>
>>>> If you are using CSS you probably won't see FONT tags in the
>>>> HTML code. The
>>>> font attributes are defined when you load the CSS.
>>>
>>>Exactly. And that is SO cool. No more sifting through the whole
>>>page/site looking for every single thing that needs a font, and then
>>>having it not quite match.
>>>
>>>CSS means you can tell the browser "When I say <p> I mean
>>>10 pt. Verdana (if available, otherwise whatever sans-serif is
>>>available) with a 1/2 inch margin left and right and the first line
>>>indented an extra quarter inch. For the whole SITE, not just a
>>>page, except where I tell you different." instead of "From here
>>>to the end of this tag, I want size 2 (whatever that may mean)
>>>Verdana or Arial if Verdana isn't on the system."
>>>
>>>This is freakin' excellent! The HTML ends up much shorter and
>>>easier to read and develop, the pages end up with better
>>>formatting and only the inconsistencies you want.
>>>
>>>The down side: the display differences between browsers get
>>>much more extreme. CSS has taken more collateral damage in the
>>>browser wars than any other feature I care about. (ActiveX VS
>>>Java is worse, but in %99+ of the cases I've seen, the job can be
>>>done by an animated GIF and the site improved by skipping it
>>>altogether.) But most of the time, all the browsers will do something
>>>that looks reasonably good. The old "test with each browser" routine
>>>is even more important with CSS.
>>>
>>>---
>>>Office:
>>>mike -dot- huber -at- software -dot- rockwell -dot- com
>>>Home:
>>>nax -at- execpc -dot- com
>>>
>>>=============================================================
>>>==============
>>>Send commands to listserv -at- listserv -dot- okstate -dot- edu (e.g.,
>>>SIGNOFF TECHWR-L)
>>>
>>>
>>>