Talk:Style sheet (web development)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] from Vfd

On 15 Mar 2005, this article was nominated for deletion. The result was keep. See Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Separation of style and content for a record of the discussion. —Korath (Talk) 00:36, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Big edit

Just added a lot more. I wish I had looked at the VfD page before starting my edit, however, since I went the route of just adding a bunch more information about the use of CSS. If there are other good examples of this, please add them in! -Doozer 05:41, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] WTF?

The Slower work without the parsing and generation tools heading under Disadvantages does not make much sense to me.

While CSS - based documents can be easily generated and parsed automatically, defining styles separately makes the document more difficult to read and write without the software tools. In some cases (for example, in the source code comments) the HTML code must be easy to write and read, and CSS is less frequently used.

"...makes the document more difficult to read and write without software tools."

What does this mean? I write X/HTML and CSS with a text editor and view the results in a browser. This seems like the bare minimum you need to write web code. I don't rely on any other software tools to "see" what I am producing. This comment is vague and misleading.

I think this whole section should be deleted. --Rossr 21:26, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

I went ahead and removed most of that section. I revised a bit, but I coludn't even discern what the original author had in mind.

[edit] "Traditional" web design

This differs from the traditional web design methodology, in which a page's markup defines both style and content.

That just doesn't sound right. CSS design is not "non-traditional". It's been around for ten years and it's considered the right way to do it. This should be worded better. —Michael Z. 2006-12-14 10:00 Z

This is a good point, I will modify the text to better reflect a more neutral and accurate connotation. dr.ef.tymac 16:14, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Merge

I vote to merge this with style sheet (web development). Unless there's any technology mentioned that is an alternative to tables besides style sheets, its really just an article listing the benefits of style sheets or criticism of HTML tables. Benefits of styles sheets should be part of the style sheet article. Criticism of HTML tables should be part of the HTML table article. Oicumayberight 02:46, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Neutral: Makes sense content-wise, but what about article size? It seems it may be justifiable as a separate article merely on the basis of how much content there is. Perhaps an article series is more appropriate? dr.ef.tymac 07:05, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

A series is a good idea. Maybe have a template for web design approaches. Whatever the case, all the talk about benefits of style sheets should be saved for the Style sheet (web development) article. The concept of tableless web design should be about more than one alternative to tables, or else it should be renamed "Style sheet web design". Oicumayberight 21:42, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Support: No one else has chimed in on this, so how about support for merge with possible follow-up expansion into article series later on if necessary. The rationale for the content re-org makes sense to me, but there is one point in response to what you said:

tableless web design should be about more than one alternative to tables, or else it should be renamed "Style sheet web design"

although I agree with the underlying rationale for this, the term "tableless web design" is (if I am not mistaken) a term of art used in some circles of web development. The term is definitely imprecise, but also recognizable as a specific jargonized name for the underlying concept. The term evolved as an historical attribute of the way web browsers evolved (analogous to the term "horseless carriage"). Anyway, the point is the term is admittedly weak, and "style-sheet web design" is a good retronym, but there should be at least a note in the article, so that people who still use the "antiquated" terminology don't miss the point. dr.ef.tymac 02:28, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Oppose - We do not have an article on using tables for web design. This is the best we have. We could rename the article, with emphasis on using tables and the disadvantages. -- Petri Krohn 21:52, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I still think it should be part of either the web design or the style sheet (web development) article. However, if there are alternatives to tables besides style sheets, and enough other issues concerning tables in general, then maybe we should just remove the redirect on the title "HTML table" and make it the name of this article. It can still be linked from the HTML element article. Oicumayberight 23:52, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Oppose - For the moment, the antiquated term is still the clearest and about a different topic than css: the latter is not only a particular way to attain tableless layout control but just as well an aid for table designing. The css article should mention that css can be used for tableless web design without going deeper into that technical aspect and provide a simple lin;, and in case other methods could be used for such purpose, the article tableless web design could mention (and compare) several methods. The absence of another method in the current article does not mean its topic to be css. — SomeHuman 19 Mar 2007 19:34 (UTC)