CSS is for wimps



  • @blakeyrat said:

    @dhromed said:

    @blakeyrat said:

    I just use a lot of hyperbole because it makes my writing funnier.
     

    That kind of thing never works.

    Not sure if serious...

    Well, I think my writing is hilarious, and that's all that matters really.

     

    Not serious.

    Hey, there's a reason people've coined the term "blakeyrant".

    Hilarity ensues.



  • @dhromed said:

    Hilarity ensues.

    Personally, I think the funniest part is how terrible everyone is at arguing.  Everyone who isn't blakeyrat.



  • @HighlyPaidContractor said:

    @dhromed said:

    Hilarity ensues.

    Personally, I think the funniest part is how terrible everyone is at arguing.  Everyone who isn't blakeyrat.

    It makes my day when people try to counter my points by... rephrasing my points. That's happened 2, 3 times in this thread.



  • @HighlyPaidContractor said:

    @dhromed said:

    Hilarity ensues.

    Personally, I think the funniest part is how terrible everyone is at arguing.  Everyone who isn't blakeyrat.

    But you haven't seen my mad quoting skill




  • @Xyro said:

    ...assuming it has a perfectly adequate class scheme to start with


    Duh.

    @Xyro said:
    Multiply that times a mildly complex layout and you're back to the problem stated by dhromed


    The fact that you sometimes need to think twice to do something complex is no excuse to stop thinking when you do simple things.
    Take a CSS from an arbitrary site and you'll see needless repitition that is the CSS equivalent of programming without loops or procedures.
     
    Consider this snippet from http://forums.thedailywtf.com/themes/leanandgreen/style/common.css :
     
     .CommonRateControl
     {
         display: inline-table;
         display: -moz-inline-box;
         display: inline-block;
         background-color: #eeeeee;
         border-style: solid;
         border-color: #999999;
         border-width: 1px;
         cursor: pointer;
         padding: 1px;
         white-space: nowrap;
     }
     
     .CommonRateControlActive
     {
         display: inline-table;
         display: -moz-inline-box;
         display: inline-block;
         background-color: #ffcc66;
         border-style: solid;
         border-width: 1px;
         border-color: #cc9933;
         cursor: pointer;
         padding: 1px;
         white-space: nowrap;
     }

    That's only a few out of 2800 lines of unnecessary, unmaintainable, repetitive stupidity easily avoided by using aspect classes.



  • @JvdL said:

     .CommonRateControl
     {
         display: inline-table;
         display: -moz-inline-box;
         display: inline-block;
         background-color: #eeeeee;
         border-style: solid;
         border-color: #999999;
         border-width: 1px;
         cursor: pointer;
         padding: 1px;
         white-space: nowrap;
     }
     
     .CommonRateControlActive
     {
         display: inline-table;
         display: -moz-inline-box;
         display: inline-block;
         background-color: #ffcc66;
         border-style: solid;
         border-width: 1px;
         border-color: #cc9933;
         cursor: pointer;
         padding: 1px;
         white-space: nowrap;
     }

    That's only a few out of 2800 lines of unnecessary, unmaintainable, repetitive stupidity easily avoided by using aspect classes.
     

    Or use the cascade:

     .CommonRateControl, .CommonRateControlActive {
         display: inline-table;
         display: -moz-inline-box;
         display: inline-block;
         background-color: #eee;
         border: 1px solid #999;
         cursor: pointer;
         padding: 1px;
         white-space: nowrap;
     }
     
     .CommonRateControlActive {
         background-color: #ffcc66;
         border-color: #cc9933;
     }



  • @JvdL said:

    That's only a few out of 2800 lines of unnecessary, unmaintainable, repetitive stupidity easily avoided by using aspect classes.

    Are... are you trying to tell us that Community Server isn't well-designed?

    I need a moment to sit down... wow... I just... wow...



  • @HighlyPaidContractor said:

    You sample set is 5 websites, one of which you designed?  You really need to stop feeding the Blakeyrat.

    I'm sooo sorry, CS must have ate my sarcasm-tags. The point is, I rarely see layouts using those kinds of columns. Blakey apparently sees them all the time. I find that slightly odd.

    @Monomelodies said:

    Blakey accusses CSS of being designed by someone intent on enforcing his personal vision, and you respond by arguing the exact same thing.
     

    Read better. The people who designed CSS didn't invent the internet. That was actually already, ehm, there, you know. It already worked in a certain way, and CSS added layout to that. What would have been truly odd was for the CSS folks to have said "you know, ur doing it wrong. Let's make webpages work in an ENTIRELY different manner, one that'll freak the hell out of everyone watching them on a computer monitor. Hah!".



  • @HighlyPaidContractor said:

    I expect all of my columns to extend equally, as if the columns were related somehow (perhaps in a table).

    Ok, fine. I rarely do. If that's what you really need, tables are probably your best bet at the moment. And you know, I wouldn't even think less of you for it, since the behaviour you describe is kind of defining for, ehm, tables. So, good call.

    @HighlyPaidContractor said:

    A column is a box with the same height as each of its neighbor boxes.

    No they're not.

    @HighlyPaidContractor said:

    When using a variable, you can be sure that when you change its value, it changes in every relevant location, and no others.  Search-and-replace easily lends itself to clbuttic mistakes.
     

    I think you may have missed the part where I stated that sometimes, I do actually miss them in CSS. Just not that often.



  • @blakeyrat said:

    It doesn't matter what I like or dislike. C# doesn't tell me what kind of applications I can build, and CSS sure as shit shouldn't tell me what kind of websites I can build.

    Ehm, yes it should. You're comparing CSS to C#, where you should rather be comparing it to something like Qt in this context. Qt defines how your application will look. So does CSS.

    Okay, this is all a crappy analogy, but I didn't start it :)

    @blakeyrat said:

    Here's a short play in one act to demonstrate what you're defending:

    Ehm, no.

    Contractor A: you really should use this thing called 'mortar' to put between them bricks in yo' new garage.
    Contractor B: but I like superglueeee*. Been working for me since I was in kindergarten!
    Contractor A: look, buildings really work better if you use mortar for that.
    Contractor B: says who? The CSS nazis? No! Glueeee*!
    Contractor A: fine. I won't be parking my car here then.

     

    * think high-pitched voice here.



  • @Monomelodies said:

    @HighlyPaidContractor said:

    You sample set is 5 websites, one of which you designed?  You really need to stop feeding the Blakeyrat.

    I'm sooo sorry, CS must have ate my sarcasm-tags. The point is, I rarely see layouts using those kinds of columns. Blakey apparently sees them all the time. I find that slightly odd.

    Let's look at Alexa's worldwide rankings!

    Google.com - no columns (unless you count sub-sites like news.google.com, which *do* have them)
    Facebook.com - columns (once you log in)
    YouTube.com - columns
    Yahoo.com - columns
    Live.com - columns (once you log in)
    Baidu.com - no columns (although some probably exist in subsites; I don't read Chinese)
    Blogger.com - hard case; the admin tools don't seem to have columns, but most blog layouts do
    Wikipedia.org - columns
    QQ.com - columns
    Twitter.com - columns (once you log in)
    MSN.com - columns
    Yahoo.co.jp - columns

    That's the top 12. If anything, I think I vastly *under*estimated the amount of sites using columns when I said "75%". Also, note that this is ordered by unique visitors-- if you ordered it by pageviews you'd have *far* more column pages than non-column pages. (Facebook has an order of magnitude more pageviews-per-visit than other sites, and it's number two here.)

    @Monomelodies said:

    The people who designed CSS didn't invent the internet. That was actually already, ehm, there, you know. It already worked in a certain way, and CSS added layout to that. What would have been truly odd was for the CSS folks to have said "you know, ur doing it wrong. Let's make webpages work in an ENTIRELY different manner, one that'll freak the hell out of everyone watching them on a computer monitor. Hah!".

    They were designing a tool; tools shouldn't dictate what they can be used for. C# doesn't. C++ doesn't. JavaScript doesn't. Hell, even DOM doesn't. Why should CSS?

    (Of course the correct answer is: CSS also wasn't. The designers of CSS were just too incompetent to put in the features web developers use most often.)



  • @Monomelodies said:

    @blakeyrat said:

    Here's a short play in one act to demonstrate what you're defending:

    Ehm, no.

    Contractor A: you really should use this thing called 'mortar' to put between them bricks in yo' new garage.
    Contractor B: but I like superglueeee*. Been working for me since I was in kindergarten!
    Contractor A: look, buildings really work better if you use mortar for that.
    Contractor B: says who? The CSS nazis? No! Glueeee*!
    Contractor A: fine. I won't be parking my car here then.

     

    * think high-pitched voice here.

    Don't quit your day job. Unless your day job is scriptwriting, then do quit it.



  • @Monomelodies said:

    Some stuff I only half read.

    I'm not going to argue any more - partly because my job has been particularly soul-deadening today, and I have lost all will to live - but mostly because I have no stake in this argument and just though it was funny.



  • @Monomelodies said:

    @blakeyrat said:

    It doesn't matter what I like or dislike. C# doesn't tell me what kind of applications I can build, and CSS sure as shit shouldn't tell me what kind of websites I can build.

    Ehm, yes it should. You're comparing CSS to C#, where you should rather be comparing it to something like Qt in this context. Qt defines how your application will look.

    Wait a minute... no it doesn't!



  • @Monomelodies said:

    Ehm, no.

    Contractor A: you really should use this thing called 'mortar' to put between them bricks in yo' new garage.
    Contractor B: but I like superglueeee*. Been working for me since I was in kindergarten!
    Contractor A: look, buildings really work better if you use mortar for that.
    Contractor B: says who? The CSS nazis? No! Glueeee*!
    Contractor A: fine. I won't be parking my car here then.

    * think high-pitched voice here.

    CSS is like building a garage out of blankets and pillows. 

    Tables have a rigid structure like cement.  CSS lets you swap out the wall made from your mom's floral bedlinens with your much superior superman sheets with little to no effort.



  • @HighlyPaidContractor said:

    CSS is like building a garage out of blankets and pillows. 

    So the DIVs are the blankets and SPANs are the pillows?  Or is that the other way around?  Either way, they're equally squishy.



  • @blakeyrat said:

    Don't quit your day job. Unless your day job is scriptwriting, then do quit it.
     

     

    Wait... Where's the argument?

    It's correct, that with CSS you may only describe the markup of a HTML document. For you, let's call it 'building' ... May it be garage or appartment.

     

    And of course there are restrictions in CSS, you get them in every language. To understand it you also have to learn the basics - your approach sounds like programming without variables (you know, a very basic thing, like, uh, BoxModel?) and screaming "this is shit!".



  • Ghe, like I said, we're not going to agree on this, and that's cool (I'm perfectly happy with CSS, and so are you with tables). But, for the sake of being thorough: we WERE talking about your impossible-to-do-with-CSS columns, which have related heights. Let's not forget that.

    Facebook.com - nope, none of those kinds of columns (just one long box in the middle)
    YouTube.com - idem
    Yahoo.com - idem
    Live.com - idem (unless I'm not looking at the correct page here)
    Blogger.com - idem
    Wikipedia.org - nope, see Facebook
    QQ.com - corner case: they seem to try it, but implement it really shitty. I'll grant you this one
    Twitter.com - nope
    MSN.com - I get redirected back to live.com. Prolly some geo-issue.
    Yahoo.co.jp - nope

    So, in this list we have one "maybe", one "can't tell" and the rest simply don't do fixed-height columns. And columns of unrelated height (like these and most other sites have) are REALLY easy to do in CSS, since that's what floats are for.

    @Blakeyrat said:
    @Monomelodies said:
    The people who designed CSS didn't invent the internet. That was actually already, ehm, there, you know. It already worked in a certain way, and CSS added layout to that. What would have been truly odd was for the CSS folks to have said "you know, ur doing it wrong. Let's make webpages work in an ENTIRELY different manner, one that'll freak the hell out of everyone watching them on a computer monitor. Hah!".

    They were designing a tool; tools shouldn't dictate what they can be used for. C# doesn't. C++ doesn't. JavaScript doesn't. Hell, even DOM doesn't. Why should CSS?

    (Of course the correct answer is: CSS also wasn't. The designers of CSS were just too incompetent to put in the features web developers use most often.)

     

    Close: they're a tool designed to build websites. You can also use CSS to build a number of other things. I seem to recall Windows Explorer could be skinned using HTML/CSS, but I'm not really sure (haven't used it in years). Or iPad apps. That doesn't mean CSS is going to be naturally good at that kind of stuff. And CSS != a programming language. It's like saying HTML itself sucks because you can't build a Doom-clone in it. Or SQL sucks because it forces you to structure your data in tables.

    Anyway, the feature is there, it's called a float. The feature you're missing is related columns of identical height, which is indeed missing. Whether no-one (besides apparently you) uses it because it's missing or because it simply doesn't make much sense on most websites is a matter up for debate.



  • @Monomelodies said:

    The feature you're missing is related columns of identical height, which is indeed missing. Whether no-one (besides apparently you) uses it because it's missing or because it simply doesn't make much sense on most websites is a matter up for debate.
     

    Except it's not really missing any more.  display:table + display:table-cell.  Try it.



  • @Monomelodies said:

    The feature you're missing is related columns of identical height, which is indeed missing.
     

    as sprained said,you can still make your stuff display as a table-cell or whatever - i made an workaround without it, messy as hell :D (didn't implement it anywhere).

    But i guess - it's kind of a WTF. Had to nest divs 4-5 layers deep.

    you can see it here



  •  Here's a much cleaner alternative (sorry, don't have any way to upload it to hosting right now, but you can test it out [note: will NOT work in IE 6, and I can't vouch for IE 7]):

     <!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01//EN" "http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/strict.dtd">
    <html lang="en">
    <head>
        <title>asf</title>
        <style type="text/css" media="screen">
            #parent { display: table; width: 100%; }
            .col {
                display: table-cell;
                width: 29%;
                padding: 10px 2% 10px 2%; /* note that width + padding = 33% */
           }
            #col1 { background: #FCC;    }
            #col2 {    background: #CFC;    }
            #col3 {    background: #CCf;    }
        </style>
    </head>
    <body>

    <div id="parent">
        <div id="col1" class="col"><p>col 1</p></div>
        <div id="col2" class="col"><p>Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Etiam id mi eu erat hendrerit feugiat. Suspendisse venenatis libero nec libero laoreet vitae porta dui interdum. Class aptent taciti sociosqu ad litora torquent per conubia nostra, per inceptos himenaeos. Aliquam venenatis lorem eu elit ullamcorper consequat. Cras ut eros at nunc consequat euismod. Nulla non blandit nibh. Praesent bibendum nibh eget mi dignissim et tincidunt sem eleifend. Pellentesque suscipit facilisis vehicula. Aliquam malesuada varius nisl at placerat. Nam tincidunt augue nec dui scelerisque eu malesuada justo blandit. Maecenas a ipsum felis, in tristique odio. Proin congue elit quis libero tempor tincidunt. Aliquam suscipit, elit vel pretium aliquet, risus elit rhoncus ante, non dictum ligula ipsum in ipsum. Praesent eu urna a ante consectetur ornare et eget nisl.</p></div>
        <div id="col3" class="col"><p>col 3</p></div>
    </div>

    </body>
    </html>



  • @sprained said:

    [note: will NOT work in IE 6, and I can't vouch for IE 7]):

    It looks like crap in IE8; the middle column flows over into col3. Chrome is ok, so if you wanted to demonstrate that CSS is hard to get right, you succeeded.



  •  Haha.  I'm guessing that actually, IE is expanding the middle column at the expense of the side columns.  Silly IE, which treats width properties as suggestions rather than absolutes.

    Oh, now I see.  That's totally screwed up.  Do you see now why
    web developers are frustrated with IE, Blakeyrat?  They claim to be the
    only browser to fully implement CSS2, but then can't even get a
    paragraph to be contained in its parent element.  

     And this will probably post 3 times because CS is so freaking responsive.

     



  • @sprained said:

     Haha.  I'm guessing that actually, IE is expanding the middle column at the expense of the side columns.  Silly IE, which treats width properties as suggestions rather than absolutes.

    Oh, now I see. That's totally screwed up. Do you see now why web developers are frustrated with IE, Blakeyrat? They claim to be the only browser to fully implement CSS2, but then can't even get a paragraph to be contained in its parent element.

    I've pointed this out in another thread, but IE isn't part of the browser cabal. The W3C only has two real implementers: IE, and everybody else. Everybody else, when they're confused about a spec, will look at whichever browser (other than IE) has already implemented and copy it. Sometimes literally copy the code. The fact that IE has an independent implementation is a fucking GOOD thing, and I don't see how anybody can claim otherwise.

    Edit: I feel I should expand on this. What (for example) Chrome should do when confused about an aspect of the spec is go to the W3C and force them to make an official decision on the behavior required and update the spec. They don't do this; instead they just look at what Firefox did and copy it exactly. They also make no effort to get Firefox's behavior codified by the W3C and updated in the spec. Thus: the spec remains vague. Thus: it's fully possible for IE to implement the spec word-for-word and yet show a different result. Thus: web developers bitch at IE being different because they have the gall to actually implement based on the spec, when all the other browsers are not.

    Anyway, "fully support CSS2" and "paragraph contained in parent element" aren't mutually-exclusive, you know. You have to show that the IE is doing something here in obvious violation of the CSS2 spec. Remember back in history? IE's box-model was fully compliant with the CSS spec at one point, before the W3C changed the spec out from under them.

    The reason "web developers", at least the whiny ones, are frustrated with IE are:
    1) Most of them have the Slashdot-esque generic Microsoft hatred, where Microsoft is a scapegoat for everything wrong with computers ever
    2) Most of them are lazy fucks, and (not realizing how easy their job already is compared to most) don't want to have to QA their products in more than one browser
    3) Most of them value some abstract academic bullshit "style separate from content" "semantical purity" "HTML needs to be XML-compatible" over getting their fucking job done

    CSS aside, Microsoft's custom DOM properties, like "readyState", make it trivial to develop certain types of JS apps on IE that are a huge headache on Firefox. Compare IE's currentStyle property with the W3C's retardly inefficient "getComputedStyle" function-- what is a 12-character property in IE becomes 40 characters and two function calls and "having to refer to a CSS style by its CSS name and not its DOM name" mess in Firefox and other non-IE browsers. (Of course the fact that the "style" object doesn't already feed you cascaded styles is a WTF in itself.)

    (Yeah, that's right: if you want the margin top on an element, you use theObj.style.marginTop;. If you want the computed margin top, you use window.getComputedStyle(theObj, "").getPropertyValue("margin-top");. Note that in using the W3C way, to create a generic function to get either a style or computed style, your function needs to translate between the DOM version of the style property and the CSS version. In IE, you can optionally use the easy, logical theObj.currentStyle.marginTop;.)

    Oh, and look at the W3C standard for figuring which mouse button was pressed on a mouse event. It's so retarded, your brain will explode out your ears-- nobody at the W3C ever heard of holding down TWO mouse buttons simultaneously? IE, once again, implements it in a easy, rational fashion.

    Anybody griping about IE being "behind" other browsers simply hasn't used IE. The real fact of the matter is:
    1) The standards often do things in the most illogical, confusing way possible (getComputedStyle vs. currentStyle, textContent vs. innerText)
    2) IE developers frequently (and rightly, IMO) call these confusing standards fucking out and make their own version, which makes 50 times more sense
    3) The fact that the W3C ignores IE's innovations (99% of the time; there's always xmlHttpRequest) is a fucking crime against all web developers everywhere. Note: Microsoft is a member/sponsor of the W3C, and they get treated like shit by them

    (My more conspiratorial theory is that the W3C ignores things like "innerText" and "currentStyle" specifically to spite Microsoft.)

    @sprained said:

    And this will probably post 3 times because CS is so freaking responsive.

    Yeah, try removing tags if you added any.



  • Another classic Blakeyrant.  I agree, except for one little thing... 

    @blakeyrat said:

    ever heard of holding down TWO mouse buttons simultaneously?

    Yes, I've heard of it but what possible reason is there for holding down two buttons?  How many users are even capable of such synchronisation?  1% of the user population?

    1. Minesweeper - vintage 1991 - "superclick" action.  Most people never discovered this feature and it has never featured again in any other Microsoft interface.  Are there any current games that use it on any OS?

    2. If you've clicked on the wrong thing and realise it while you've still got your finger held down, most menus or buttons will allow a hold-and-click-the-other-mouse-button to cancel.  Some people discover this feature when they are stuck in the moment of realisation and desparately try any other button they can reach.

    Web pages are a simplified and standardised method of interacting with a computer.  WTF are you trying to do that needs two buttons, let alone two simultaneous buttons?

    I have butted my head against this very issue myself.  I do prefer the IE way of letting scripts know what button was pushed.  The non-IE way seems to be too much like a guessing game.  "A button was pushed somewhere.  Would you like to know which one or would you like the event to bubble up to some other poorly-defined default browser behaviour which presents your user with multiple options inconsistent with the thing they are trying to do? Can we be any less helpful?"



  • @Qwerty said:

    @blakeyrat said:

    ever heard of holding down TWO mouse buttons simultaneously?

    Yes, I've heard of it but what possible reason is there for holding down two buttons?  How many users are even capable of such synchronisation?  1% of the user population?

     

     

    So, since only 1% of people know about it, it doesn't matter how many developers would want to implement it as a feature, or be able to actually find out what buttons are pressed. It shouldn't even be possible to try to implement something using that?




  • @BC_Programmer said:

    @Qwerty said:

    @blakeyrat said:

    ever heard of holding down TWO mouse buttons simultaneously?

    Yes, I've heard of it but what possible reason is there for holding down two buttons?  How many users are even capable of such synchronisation?  1% of the user population?

     

     

    So, since only 1% of people know about it, it doesn't matter how many developers would want to implement it as a feature, or be able to actually find out what buttons are pressed. It shouldn't even be possible to try to implement something using that?


    Ditto that sentiment.

    As long as it's physically possible, the software should report it. It's not DOM's job to tell me how to write my fucking app, the tool needs to be dumb so that the developers can use it in smart ways. And if there are no smart ways? Well, then DOM reporting the actual state of the mouse doesn't hurt any-fucking-thing. (The W3C standardizing their fucking lame event.button shit *after* IE already had a significant better version? That hurts.)



  • @sprained said:

    Here's a much cleaner alternative (sorry, don't have any way to upload it to hosting right now, but you can test it out [note: will NOT work in IE 6, and I can't vouch for IE 7]):
     

    As i said, i did it without displaying it as a table / cell / whatever. And it also works in IE6 ;) .

     

    The real problem about IE6/7 is, it's too f*** old - it's very frustrating for every webdeveloper to make something complex also work in IE6 (missing features, different handling and so on).

    I'm not saying IE6 was shit, but it is now if you have to support it (microsoft finally dumped the support for this one, yay) - just imagine a software developer would have to make his products backward compatible to Win95...



  • I recently worked on an ASP app that was required to be backwards compatible to 1997.  Netscape 4 / IE 4.  You don't even know what pain is.



  • @HighlyPaidContractor said:

    I recently worked on an ASP app that was required to be backwards compatible to 1997.  Netscape 4 / IE 4.  You don't even know what pain is.

    Ouch, dealing with IE is bad enough, but dealing with a site written for Netscape 4?!

    Anyone who has ever had to deal with IE problems, go try developing a site for Netscape 4 and its... interesting interpretation of DOM, CSS, and HTML4.



  • @powerlord said:

    Anyone who has ever had to deal with IE problems, go try developing a site for Netscape 4 and its... interesting interpretation of DOM, CSS, and HTML4.

    And its... interesting differences between "minor" version numbers. I seem to remember people chose to just support 4.07 because 01-06 were just too different.



  • @powerlord said:

    @HighlyPaidContractor said:

    I recently worked on an ASP app that was required to be backwards compatible to 1997.  Netscape 4 / IE 4.  You don't even know what pain is.

    Ouch, dealing with IE is bad enough, but dealing with a site written for Netscape 4?!

    Anyone who has ever had to deal with IE problems, go try developing a site for Netscape 4 and its... interesting interpretation of DOM, CSS, and HTML4.

    But... but... but to hear some people say it, if it's not IE it must have been perfect!! Why you can't be seriously suggesting that IE6 was the best browser until Mozilla 6 came out, could you? I thought Netscape was a magical, holy, being and IE is a demon come to steal our womenfolk!



  • @blakeyrat said:

    @powerlord said:

    @HighlyPaidContractor said:

    I recently worked on an ASP app that was required to be backwards compatible to 1997.  Netscape 4 / IE 4.  You don't even know what pain is.

    Ouch, dealing with IE is bad enough, but dealing with a site written for Netscape 4?!

    Anyone who has ever had to deal with IE problems, go try developing a site for Netscape 4 and its... interesting interpretation of DOM, CSS, and HTML4.

    But... but... but to hear some people say it, if it's not IE it must have been perfect!! Why you can't be seriously suggesting that IE6 was the best browser until Mozilla 6 came out, could you? I thought Netscape was a magical, holy being and IE is a demon that has come to steal our womenfolk!

    FTFY, two can play the "your spelling suck" game



  • @serguey123 said:

    @blakeyrat said:

    @powerlord said:

    @HighlyPaidContractor said:

    I recently worked on an ASP app that was required to be backwards compatible to 1997.  Netscape 4 / IE 4.  You don't even know what pain is.

    Ouch, dealing with IE is bad enough, but dealing with a site written for Netscape 4?!

    Anyone who has ever had to deal with IE problems, go try developing a site for Netscape 4 and its... interesting interpretation of DOM, CSS, and HTML4.

    But... but... but to hear some people say it, if it's not IE it must have been perfect!! Why you can't be seriously suggesting that IE6 was the best browser until Mozilla 6 came out, could you? I thought Netscape was a magical, holy being and IE is a demon that has come to steal our womenfolk!

    FTFY, two can play the "your spelling suck" game

    ... what's the "your spelling suck" game? Did I tell someone their spelling sucks? Was my spelling incorrect? (All you did was remove a comma...)

    I'm so confused.



  • @blakeyrat said:

    @serguey123 said:

    @blakeyrat said:

    @powerlord said:

    @HighlyPaidContractor said:

    I recently worked on an ASP app that was required to be backwards compatible to 1997.  Netscape 4 / IE 4.  You don't even know what pain is.

    Ouch, dealing with IE is bad enough, but dealing with a site written for Netscape 4?!

    Anyone who has ever had to deal with IE problems, go try developing a site for Netscape 4 and its... interesting interpretation of DOM, CSS, and HTML4.

    But... but... but to hear some people say it, if it's not IE it must have been perfect!! Why you can't be seriously suggesting that IE6 was the best browser until Mozilla 6 came out, could you? I thought Netscape was a magical, holy being and IE is a demon that has come to steal our womenfolk!

    FTFY, two can play the "your spelling suck" game

    ... what's the "your spelling suck" game? Did I tell someone their spelling sucks? Was my spelling incorrect? (All you did was remove a comma...)

    I'm so confused.

    I'm partly joking, the comma is important, but I also added two words.  I don't care about the way people write, as long as I get their meaning I'm ok with that but people ("you") are sometimes nitpicky about this, so my point is that everybody makes mistakes and that people ("you") should be more lenient about this.

    Hey, are tags restored yet or are we still in "CS is crapping out" territory?



  • @serguey123 said:

    I'm partly joking, the comma is important, but I also added two words.  I don't care about the way people write, as long as I get their meaning I'm ok with that but people ("you") are sometimes nitpicky about this, so my point is that everybody makes mistakes and that people ("you") should be more lenient about this.

    What? I never correct people on grammar or spelling. Do I? Do you have a link?

    I mean, seriously, what the hell. There are so many things you could criticize about me: I'm an asshole, I talk too much, I hate almost everything. About the only thing I'm *not* is a grammar nazi. Why are you trying to paint me as one? Sooo confused.

    The only thing that really upsets me is when people reply to my posts without understanding them first, which means they usually don't get the point I was trying to make, which means they response with nitpicks about brain-farts or typos or bad examples instead of replying to the point I was making. That bugs me. Spelling/grammar? Never has, as long as I can understand it. Another thing that upsets me is people trying to paint me as a hypocrite without demonstrating any hypocrisy on my part-- I guess your post counts as that one!

    (Psst, I spelled "so" wrong up there, better get on my case about it!)



  • @blakeyrat said:

    @serguey123 said:
    I'm partly joking, the comma is important, but I also added two words.  I don't care about the way people write, as long as I get their meaning I'm ok with that but people ("you") are sometimes nitpicky about this, so my point is that everybody makes mistakes and that people ("you") should be more lenient about this.
    What? I never correct people on grammar or spelling. Do I? Do you have a link?

    I mean, seriously, what the hell. There are so many things you could criticize about me: I'm an asshole, I talk too much, I hate almost everything. About the only thing I'm *not* is a grammar nazi. Why are you trying to paint me as one? Sooo confused.

    The only thing that really upsets me is when people reply to my posts without understanding them first, which means they usually don't get the point I was trying to make, which means they response with nitpicks about brain-farts or typos or bad examples instead of replying to the point I was making. That bugs me. Spelling/grammar? Never has, as long as I can understand it. Another thing that upsets me is people trying to paint me as a hypocrite without demonstrating any hypocrisy on my part-- I guess your post counts as that one!

    (Psst, I spelled "so" wrong up there, better get on my case about it!)

    Getting on your case, let me get a ruler to discipline you.



  • @serguey123 said:

    http://forums.thedailywtf.com/forums/t/20853.aspx

    Getting on your case, let me get a ruler to discipline you.

    Sorry; I should have been more specific. Do you have a relevant link?

    At this point I think you're just posting to confuse me.



  • @blakeyrat said:

    @serguey123 said:

    http://forums.thedailywtf.com/forums/t/20853.aspx

    Getting on your case, let me get a ruler to discipline you.

    Sorry; I should have been more specific. Do you have a *relevant* link?

    At this point I think you're just posting to confuse me.

    Oh, sorry, did you read the link, and your post, and more to the point your own tags.

    If I confused you, even if you don't get my point, is a win by my book, as it leads to interestings conclusions



  • @blakeyrat said:

    @serguey123 said:

    http://forums.thedailywtf.com/forums/t/20853.aspx

    Getting on your case, let me get a ruler to discipline you.

    Sorry; I should have been more specific. Do you have a *relevant* link?

    At this point I think you're just posting to confuse me.

    I usually read Blakeyrants in the voice of that guy on the subway arguing with nobody in particular.  There's no hypocrisy when all you're doing is yelling for the sake of making noise.  People keep yelling back and expecting it to have some effect.

    Blakeyrat is the crazy homeless dude who pisses on the subway.  In a good way.


Log in to reply
 

Looks like your connection to What the Daily WTF? was lost, please wait while we try to reconnect.