chairface

> you can do it without changing your templates.

...

> I sometime edit the markup to change classes or add the occasional <div>.

Case in point.

> I guess table-base layout would be easier to experiment with using a wysiwyg editor.

Christ on a cracker, if a person is using a wysiwyg, they shouldn't even be in this discussion.

> learn selectors!

The grand majority of those selectors are not available in IE6, which most of us still have to support, so this is a non-starter. Nobody is arguing that we wouldn't be much better off with better CSS support. The argument is that with CSS support as it is now, most non-trivial changes to a sites design are nigh on impossible without changing the markup.

> You can't radically change the flow of the pages but that's not the point.

You know, sometimes it is.

> once you learn CSS properly

Can we quit with the "you probably don't know CSS" schtick?

> CssZenGarden also shows that refactoring a CSS-driven site is easier since you can do it without changing your templates.

In my experience, this just doesn't happen in the real world.

> I realize that css isn't the best language in the world. But if it was intuitive to write css forwards and backwards regardless of document flow -- this wouldn't be a discussion topic. The question is the amount of time invested to learn it.

Quite right. The argument, as I see it, is that it's much more practical to use the best cross-platform tool for the job, which in many cases is tables and not CSS. He's arguing that it's not worth the time.

> at least one follows a clear stated goal -- html describes the content, css draws the presentation.

This isn't even close to CSS Zen Garden's stated goal. Its goal is to show what is possible to do using CSS. It's goal is to be "A demonstration of what can be accomplished visually through CSS-based design." There's nothing about content/presentation separation anywhere on the site.

> but at least at the core we can see that HTML is purely being used to describe the content

That's certainly not what I see at all, especially at CSS Zen Garden, if that's what you're still referring to here.

> Allowing _enough_ separation required for programmers to be nearly clueless of a designer's job.

If you mean programmer == HTML, and designer == CSS, then this is simply wrong.

> I meant this by reading http://www.csszengarden.com/zengarden-sample.html not reading the html markup

But you started that part of you message with

> The HTML won't make any sense if you start reversing it

?

> If CSS Zen Garden was truly mixing presentation with content, you wouldn't be able to read that link above as easily as you can.

I'm sorry, but using wrapper divs for purely presentational purposes is mixing presentation and content. The whole concept has to do with how the code is written.

You said it was misleading that he implied it was "typical", which is a synonym for "common". You can take issue with his conclusions, but illustrating your thesis with a common case can in no way be construed as a trick.

You should read my reply to the other guy for a fuller treatment, but here's what I said about this to him, 'perhaps "demand" was hyperbole, but CSS does still push developers to rewrite their HTML when design changes happen.' The cost in flexibility to do it any other way is simply too high. This is sufficiently close to demanding to justify the hyperbole, in my mind.

edit: Furthermore, you speak as if the author is criticizing floats, but he is not. He is criticizing the attitude that tables are to be avoided for layout at all costs, when there simply is not a simple, implemented, cross browser way to replace them. Floats are simple the closest thing we can practically use, so he uses them for comparison.

> and then you wanted col 2 to be on the left of col 1, you'd write the css differently then you would the forward method.

At the cost of a lot of flexibility. Most people, when faced with a change in design like this, simply reorder their HTML. So perhaps "demand" was hyperbole, but CSS does still push developers to rewrite their HTML when design changes happen.

> Well look at it this way <html><body><div container><stuff><div container></body></html>

The container is providing a hook for layout information that the body tag cannot. For instance, if I wanted the body background color to be blue and the container's background to be white. Also, if you want your content to be restricted in width, it's a lot easier to wrap it with a div than deal with the lack of the > operator in IE 6.

> CSS Zen Garden reads perfectly and logically without css.

I didn't say that it's hard to read. I said that by the standards community's definition it is not good HTML, because it mixes content and presentation.

Just to be clear, I think that "bad HTML" is pretty much the only practical way to go right now. So, I don't have a problem with the way CSS Zen Garden uses wrappers, nor do I have a problem with the wrappers in this blog post. But you are criticizing one and making excuses for the other.

> I mean what is the point of putting <h2> tags below your <p> when it's obvious that the <h2> tag is acting as the heading for the <p> below. I wouldn't be able to read that, so why is CSS @ fault?

Nobody is talking about putting headers after the content they're introducing. The author is talking about a situation where it makes sense to order the markup one way, but CSS demands it to be done a different, not easily readable way. Which does happen sometimes.

> Why the author of the article is using a div container to wrap them all when a body tag exists is beyond me.

This looks like a ridiculous statement to me. But please, explain further what you want him to do.

I find it comical that you go on about "good HTML" and then point to CSS Zen Garden, where the HTML is inextricably bound up with the presentation (ie, adding wrapper elements to allow for flexibility in styling). CSS Zen Garden is an example of HTML as it should not have to be.

The auto-expanding equal height three column layout is such a standard layout on the web, and ways to do it are so often requested that it is referred to as the "holy grail" by the CSS community. So I find your critique and accusation of trolling to be rather misplaced.

The markup on CSS Zen Garden makes use of things like layers of wrapper divs to achieve what it does in terms of design. And this means the HTML is being used for more than just content, which is a direct controversion of CSS's goals. The site is actually a good example of what is wrong with the subset of CSS that is currently practical to use.

This was a rant? Honestly?

I think my perception of Africa's size comes entirely from the fact that it's only worth 3 armies in Risk.

> Can anyone think of a software package — or anything else, really — that proudly displays a version number higher than 23?

Well, there's Emacs.

Sounds like you must be in the Milwaukee area. The tech market there looks like a dream from where I am (live in Appleton, work in Green Bay). All a matter of perspective, I guess.

agents

Am I correct that CO is one of those states that can divide their electoral votes between candidates, and if so, did you take this into account?

Are you implying that any parenthetical remark is out of bounds? It seems to me that "saying how great an article is" captures more of the intent of the prohibition than you suggest.

That said, this particular parenthetical remark isn't all that great, albeit for reasons other than the one you cited.