After reading both of the responses to the CSS standards, I remain very confused as to what each author was really trying to say. Both of the articles, really, were just a bunch of complaining, mainly about how software companies continue to lag when it comes to complying with current design and layout standards.
Andy Clarke wrote the most straight-forward of the two articles. He voiced his anger over the W3C, failing to enforce it’s policies, and meet it’s goals. He also, spoke of the corruption among this secret society of Web designers known as the axis of CSS, who according to some, sit around all day just trying to come up with new ways to tick off Andy Clarke.
Kevin Yank’s article, although not very informative, was entertaining. My favorite part was when he alluded to hell freezing over when Internet Explorer passed the acid-2 test. It seems that Internet Explorer has and always will be the biggest rebel in the bunch. Their continued arrogance and inability to conform to current standards, will one day “Be the undoing of our free nation.”
Very few references to CSS standards were to be found in either article. Kevin Yank did discuss a few of the new features of CSS 3, which seemed pretty cool, but at the same time, seem like a step backwards as far as carrying out web page layout. I’ll explain my thinking shortly. First, here’s a few of the goodies that CSS 3 should include.
Okay, maybe I’m wrong, but that second thing up there about table-based layout, haven’t we been taught since day 1 that tables for layout are bad? Let me answer that, Yes we have. Aren’t tables a thing of the past? I thought that the whole reason we learn CSS, is so that we won’t just throw up a table and start putting stuff in it. Well, since CSS 2.1 has been out forever, and a lot of browsers still don’t fully support it, I guess I really shouldn’t worry about it too much. The way things are going now, I’ll probably be retired by the time Internet Explorer decides to support CSS 3. By that time, I really won’t care anymore.
