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.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Brierley, Sean [SMTP:Brierley -at- QUODATA -dot- COM]
> Sent: Thursday, April 08, 1999 11:35 AM
> To: TECHWR-L -at- LISTSERV -dot- OKSTATE -dot- EDU
> Subject: Re: html editor questions
>
> 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.
>
Agreed. I have gotten good results by writing my HTML code to the 3.2
standard, which almost all browsers support and display pretty uniformly. I
also include the appropriate LINK tags for the style sheets. This way
anyone with style sheet capability will (hopefully) see my more complex
layout that I spent days working on, as CSS overrides the HTML formatting
tags (alignment, colour, and so on). Those viewers without CSS see my 3.2
or 4.0 Transitional HTML, which looks clean and professional, if not fancy.
The downside is having to maintain markup in *all* the files rather than
just one, which is a pain (especially if the layout is complex and involves
tables).
> 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>.
>
The nice thing about pure HTML is that, in addition to not working on some
browsers and breaking others, the same pages always look pretty much the
same even after the browser publishers have left certain proprietary tags
behind, added five zillion more, etc. HTML 2.0 looks the same in Netscape
4.08 as it did in Netscape 2. It's ugly, but it's consistent!
Take care,
Scott
--
Scott McClare - Technical Writer
DY 4 Systems Inc., Kanata, Ontario, Canada
(613) 599-9199 x502 smcclare -at- dy4 -dot- com
Opinions are my own
