davidkin hollywood

Thursday, February 14, 2002

Why CSS? Dave Winer asks for reasons to put all of the layout in CSS and leave it out of the HTML. I have two arguments, one theoretical and one practical. First, it's just The Way It's Supposed To Be. As Dave points out, TBL wanted the web to be a certain way. I believe that pushing the layout and styles out of the HTML and into the stylesheet is closer to the markup people had in mind when they first started thinking of hypertext and linked, multilayer documents on the web. Tables are fine for some things, but when they interfere with the content of the document, you're compromising your data. Practically, layoutless HTML makes sites easier to design. Sure you have to learn CSS, and really the tools for it have not yet matured, but ultimately that's what's going to help the web expand quickly to devices other than the desktop or laptop screen. It goes back to the notion that ultimately the user is in control of the data. Why should a handheld user be subjected to the tyrrany of the designer who decided that his site *had* to be 800 pixels wide? That's stupid. Layout should be in the stylesheet, and that stylesheet should always be able to be overridden by the user. Finally, major major design changes are trivial, whether you are experimenting with fonts and colors, or trying to develop multiple designs to accomodate handheld, sight-impaired, or other non-traditional users. The thing I don't understand is why Dave Winer doesn't get it. Web designers have been pining for separation of form and content for time immemorial. His approach is "that's just the way it is -- too much inertia, yadda yadda." The fact is that new browsers all support some level of CSS support and continue to get better. So you can switch over now if you want to. Secondly, the majority of people will only .switch when their tools force them to. Dave Winer makes tools for the web. In part, it's his own stubbornness that will ensure a self-fulfilling prophecy. Just drink the kool-aid, ok?
comment 11:54:40 AM    

I'm torn. I like Richard Riordan, former L.A. Mayor, now California gubernatorial candidate. I want to see him run and do well. I don't want him to win, though. I don't want the Republican party to gain any more power or clout in the state or nationally. I think they are a threat to domestic stability as long as they promote policies that further separate the insanely rich and the desparately poor. Riordon certainly has had his problems, from alleged corruption, to police scandals, to his legendary temper. I wasn't at all pleased that he remained on his bicycle tour vacation in France while Los Angeles suffered one of the largest transportation strikes in the city's history. For his part, Riordon has supported a variety of moderate to liberal causes and candidates, from Tom Bradley's unsuccessful bid for governor to State speaker Antonio Villaraigosa's attempt for mayor. Riordan is openly pro-choice, despite ads by the Davis campaign to the contrary, and in the past has insisted that Republican party risks slipping into irrelevance in California if it does not adopt more moderate stances on abortion, homosexuality, and immigration. Yay for Dick. He's right. On the national level though, the Republican party is controlled by far-right loonies like Sen. Trent Lott and Rep. Tom DeLay, who it seems would like nothing better than to see the return of coat hangars and back alleys, the continued corruption of our political system by corporate cronies, an establishment of an American Christian theocracy, and hawkish blind unilateralism that wins us no friends on the international stage. I can't support that in any way shape or form. A Republican victory in California would be used as an excuse by the national party to push their lunacy even further. What I would like to see is Riordan lose by a small margin, showing that by moving the dialog to a more reasonable level, focusing on real problems rather than righteous indignation, Republicans can have success. This would "change the tone in Washington" more than any campaign promise of bipartisanship ever could. But I'm not going to vote for him.
comment 10:38:42 AM