>> Josip Rodin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > CSS is *good*. It lets you achieve your v i s u a l t r i c k s > > (looks awful, doesn't it?) > > It doesn't. :)
It does. Unless used with fonts that are designed for it, changing the default kerning often confuses the reader. It works fine if your words are given a generous ammount of surrounding whitespace (or if you are going for that dada effect, but then why am I even writing this?). > Errr, what about lynx, links or w3m? Last I checked they didn't > support it, either. Which is exactly the point. CSS deals mostly with visual appearence changes that only make sense if you have the luxury of scalable and variable width fonts. There is stuff in CSS which *could* be handled by text mode browsers (justification, some forms of leading, indentation, even margings perhaps) but most of it doesn't make sense for such a browser. > So you'd have to make it look good with and without CSS "look good without CSS". That's the mistake most web "designers" make. With HTML you express your document's structure, not your document's appearance. That's one of the reasons I hate <b> so much. It's <strong>damn it!</strong> > And, verifying CSS stuff looks bearable in four[1] non-compliant > browsers is harder than doing the same for tables in Lynx. If your document looks plain wrong in Lynx, you probably took a wrong turn somewhere along the path. (modulo tables used in the intended way) -- M.
