

HTML+CSS=POOP - jxcole
http://www.zideck.com/blog/article.php?id=2

======
yannis
Bollocks!

Not only the author has not had a good look at both the historical context of
HTML and CSS but has also failed to understand the technologies behind the
success of the web.

HTML is a mark-up language for documents. Its simplicity has enabled the
spread of the web. In addition it provided a means for some semantic marking
of documents through tagging. It was not meant to be a graphical language (see
SVG for that!) When it came out there were actually no browsers and most
computers were still displaying graphics with herculer cards.

Once microcomputer technology caught up a bit, fancier documents and graphics
started appearing and HTML still coped. It still copes even with fancy web
applications. In the meantime computer languages appeared and disappeared,
desktop software morphed from DOS to Windows 7.

CSS was the answer to presentational issues. It got limitations yes and it
gives people difficulties, but so Haskell for me but I never tried to blame my
own deficiencies to a 'badly designed' language. Yes CSS does not provide for
rounded corners, but it does allow you to display the same content for print,
handheld devices, auditory devices as well as feel the text in braille!

Most important this separation enables easier indexing of web pages which is
next to impossible to index with graphical based systems.

~~~
PHP-TROLL
Bollocks to your bollocks. You're reading comprehension must be very low.

"HTML is a mark-up language for documents. Its simplicity has enabled the
spread of the web. In addition it provided a means for some semantic marking
BLAH BLAH BLAH."

You are repeating what he says in his blog. Maybe you read the wrong blog?

"CSS was the answer to presentational issues."

Yes, but it's not a good answer. It is possible to criticize something not as
reflection of a person's own deficiencies, but because it is works poorly.

"Most important this separation enables easier indexing of web pages which is
next to impossible to index with graphical based systems."

He never said the separation of content and layout is bad. He said they way
that it is implemented is "POOP" Any sane person is for the seperation of
content and layout.

~~~
yannis
If you think that it works poorly you are welcome to improve it:) The
testimony of the web provides the answer to the fact that HTML and CSS works.

You can read Håkon Wium Lie's PhD thesis as to the reasoning behind CSS.
<http://people.opera.com/howcome/2006/phd/> and make your own mind if it is
POOP or not.

IMHO it has a very good basis and also provides an architecture for
improvements. Pretty much similar to Knuth's TeX.

I personally find no difficulty in using CSS! I think it is the smallest of
the head-aches that a web developer faces. really a non-issue.

------
rimantas
I just hate when people criticize things they know little about. Article is
full of incorrect statements: There are at least 3 browsers to pass acid3
test: Chrome 3, Safari 4, Opera 10.

There ir a way to have equal height divs: check out display: table-*
properties. Supportend in IE8 too.

There is a way to have rounded corners in CSS, supported in Safari, Firefox,
Chrome.

There is a way to have box shadow, and gradients in CSS. Even animation,
transformation and transitions.

------
DanielStraight
While that may be true, I don't think anyone knew enough about web design when
these technologies were created that they could've done any better.

~~~
bensummers
I suppose they could have looked at existing visual design online and offline,
and come to the conclusion that grid layouts were quite popular, and perhaps
they should support it nicely?

But what they really didn't anticipate was web _applications_ , which is a
whole other story, and something for which HTML + CSS is really badly suited.

I feel the author's pain.

~~~
DanielStraight
That's assuming anyone even anticipated comparability with print media. I
think the original vision of hypertext documents was closer to the of text
files than that of magazine pages. Grid layouts are clearly not popular in
text files. I think if HTML was modeled after what was seen around it, it
would look more like Markdown, with correspondingly fewer features.

Not to mention, modeling software interfaces after real-world objects is often
a very bad idea.

~~~
elviejo
"modeling software interfaces after real-world objects is often a very bad
idea." really?

What do you think of the desktop of your computer, compared to your physical
desk?

or the fact that the windows of your programs can be stack on top of each
other like paper pages?

Or text processing programs, that show you the output the way it is going to
be displayed (WYSIWG).

Or that whole Object Oriented Programming thingy.

On the contrary modeling software interfaces after real-world objects is a
very good idea.

~~~
DanielStraight
The desktop of my computer bears no resemblance to my physical desk. I have no
icons on my physical desk. My physical desk can hold absolutely anything no
matter shape or size and I can stack things and put them in piles and clear
them off with one swoop of my hand. Also, my computer desktop has nothing on
it, which is quite different from my physical desk.

The fact that "windows" can "stack... like paper" shows that the real world
isn't being modeled. Last time I checked, windows could not be stacked like
paper and windows on my computer have very little resemblance to paper in any
other way. I'm quite certain paper wasn't the inspiration for stacking
windows.

I think WYSIWYG editors _are_ a bad idea, precisely because they try to model
the real world too closely.

Object oriented programming is about much more than modeling real-world
objects in code. Sometimes (often in fact) that is exactly the wrong way to
create objects.

Trying to model software off real-world objects is how you get stupid things
like clicking and dragging to flip pages on a document you're reading, all
while animating the turning of the pages.

The examples you give (where they are accurate at all) are about using
physical objects to provide a metaphor for understanding software. The perfect
example is the trash / recycle bin. It provides a metaphor that makes it
easier for people to learn what it does, but it isn't modeled after a real
trash can or recycling bin. You don't have to empty it. You can, but it's not
required. You don't have to change bags. It isn't picked up twice a week. It
doesn't start to smell after a while. It's of essentially unlimited size. If
it was modeled after a real trash can, some of these things would have been
implemented in some way.

------
butterfi
"you know cars? they really should have had airbags when they were invented...
oh, and they should have had CD-Disc players as well. Boy those car
manufacturers were sure stupid."

Why is this article interesting? He doesn't like HTML & CSS. Fine. I've got a
different developer who enjoys his work. Perhaps I'll hire him instead.

~~~
jdminhbg
It's more like if cars were invented without steering wheels, and when people
pointed out that wagons had steering wheels, all the car advocates told them
that they just weren't leaning to the side hard enough when they tried to
turn.

