Slashdot Mirror
Mozilla now supports all CSS1 properties
EmilEifrem writes "Looks like the Mozilla team's doing good: "The new layout engine now supports all CSS1 properties. Troy Chevalier implemented the last property, background-attachment, earlier this week. Some properties are still buggy, and one selector (the visited pseudo-class) isn't yet implemented. However, this is probably the most complete implementation of CSS1 so far, and the bug list is consistently getting shorter." Check story at MozillaZine. "
Dammit, I want this thing to work really badly. I mean imagine if we could get Mozilla working to the point that it IS the standard! The standards would finally be based on what works rather than being picked by a team of marketing goons and focus groups of mid-western housewives*
* Not that mid-western housewives don't have a say of course...
There are a lot of people who would really REALLY
like to see a usable browser, and they are upset
that its taking so long. This is not helped by
the amount of hype that surrounded the original
release last year which claimed that Open Source
projects develop code quickly.
The project itself seems to be going well. I
usually checkout and build a few times each week
and it keeps getting better.
Absolutely. I was at CERN when Hakon Lie was designing CSS -- I could tell then it was bullshit, and all the polishing in the world can't make a gem of it.
The reason Mozilla is doing it now is that virtually all of the original Netscape client engineers have left.
Lot's of web sites use CSS. In fact all high-traffic web sites that have a serious webmaster use them. I've been using them for a year, it's cool, even if most of it looks only good on IE4/5 because Netscape handle CSS so badly (especially table formatting, I like to put nice borders on my tables).
Not only CSS has a future but it is already widely used now. You should use the "view document source" more often...
An excellent bit of FUD, combining a class form of false argument, combined with an ad hominem attack, and buttressed at the end by a non-sequitur. Well Done!
However, Lie did not design CSS in a vacuum and
it is a quite reasonable specification. Furthermore, it is just simply false that "virtually all" of the Netscape engineers have left; some have left but, hey, it's Silicon Valley. There are many veterans still cranking out some excellent designs and code.
Would you mind filing a bug on this?
Anonymous Coward here,
You have English Translation to the url you gave us?
I haven't done any investigation into it, but it occurs to me that IE 5 was lauded by M$ as being the worlds first XML compliant browser.
XML became a standard in February of 98. CSS2 became a standard in May of 98. XML is being implemented (again, I have no idea how well). CSS2 is not being implemented anywere, so far as I can tell, and CSS1 (very old) is only being implemented now.
It doesn't exactly look promising for HTML and CSS.
The June (or July?) beta will be important: At that point you'll have a whole lot new users starting to play with it. That should draw more interest from other developers too.
Personally, I think JWZ's departure and subsequent comments were all about sour grapes. I didn't expect mozilla to be "hacker friendly" for at least a year, I don't understand why anyone would have. Granted, the project has a bit of a "family atmosphere," but what else should we expect?
In hindsight, dumping the legacy rendering engine will probably be seen as the salvation of mozilla. It's smaller, faster and easier to maintain, at least according to the comments I've read from developers. After the code stabilizes we'll probably see gecko popping up in all kinds of applications and a lot more interest in development. I think mozilla is going to put the screws to Internet Exploder and will eventually become the de facto standard against which other browsers are measured.
slashdot broke my sig
...a Solaris binary. Damned if I can get Mozilla to compile on a Solaris system with GNU tools.
...Steve
If the standard wasn't it place (even though
various versions of it were available), why
did MS try to implement into IE3 -- because
as it is, the IE3 CSS support is broken to the
point of hiding valid content with
valid CSS even if the CSS code wasn't
meant to do that.
An adage used in CIWAH suggests that Lynx is
really the best browser because it *doesn't*
support all the netscape-isms and such. I
think this also applies to CSS -- unless
the implementation is nearly 100% (such as
IE4 & 5, or Opera), it should be ignore so
that the content isn't affected at all.
This is why NS4.x is a bane of many page
developers, because while it's CSS support is
there for fonts, colors, etc, it does
so many wrong things when it comes to the
layout that it's almost necessary to develop
a CSS for NS alone, in addition to the IE3 and
the generic CSS sheet. (Or tell the users
to disable CSS by disabling JavaScript, but
that's another can of worms).
The same with HTML4.0 -- there's a lot of
features in that that can be used to the web
designer's advantage (OBJECT), but even with
the spec finallized, IE5 still came out without
full compliant support, so designers still have
to struggle to make pages work. But, oh yes,
IE5 supports XML! I think moves like this are
again only aimed at PHBs to get the product
supported, but do little for the web developer
or end consumer.
"Pinky, you've left the lens cap of your mind on again." - P&TB
"I can see my house from here!" - ST:
CSS is supported to some extent on all but
one browser, that one being IE3 which has so
much broken CSS support, it's not funny. And
browsers that don't know anything about CSS
support it, generally, because they will render
the page without it (aka lynx), so using CSS
on a non-CSS browser will get you graceful
degragation.
And as pointed out, you probably use sites every
day that use CSS, and don't know it, because
it's supposed to be invisible to the end user.
It's not that CSS is dying out now, but it's
been slow to catch on, as people find table layout
a terrible approach to web design and accessibility
comes into play.
"Pinky, you've left the lens cap of your mind on again." - P&TB
"I can see my house from here!" - ST:
I don't think so. First, here's a quote from
w3's page:
Will XSL replace CSS?
No. They are likely to co-exist since they meet different needs. XSL is intended for complex
formatting where the content of the document might be displayed in multiple places; for
example the text of a heading might also appear in a dynamically generated table of contents.
CSS is intended for dynamic formatting of online documents for multiple media; its strictly
declarative nature limits its capabilities but also makes it efficient and easy to generate and
modify in the content-generation workflow. So they are two different tools; for some tasks,
CSS is the appropriate choice and for some tasks, XSL. They can also be used together - use
XSL on the server to condense or customize some XML data into a simpler XML document, then
use CSS to style it on the client.
Secondly, most average web authors will for the next 2 to 3 years will still be using HTML for
most pages, and CSS is the only way to format
these types of pages.
However, the apparent problem with CSS is that it
has been standardized by the W3 group for several
years, and only *now* are we seeing fully compatible browsers, mostly due to the trail ends
of the browser wars. It's a shame that there
is all this tech in web content delievery that
an author cannot take advantage of because
of incomplete browsers.
"Pinky, you've left the lens cap of your mind on again." - P&TB
"I can see my house from here!" - ST:
I think Netscape/Mozilla has made an amazing number of techinally sound decisions since they went Open Source(TM).
Like for example following and implementing standards, instead of their previous policy of "let's drink some beer, hack a couple of new tags (like `blink') into the code, and let someone else try to describe it".
Maybe JWZ misses the old days, I don't!
--
Is it just my installation of Netscape or does everybody suffer from the damn
EAGAIN Resource temporarily unavailable
hangs constantly?
microsoft.com, compaq.com, cnn.com, go.com (abc, disney, etc), and numerous others make use of CSS.
/mill
Look at http://www.w3.org/Style "Why two style sheet languages". XSL isn't supposed to be applied to HTML.
HTML sucks in general. CSS sucks because of redundancy. BUT it is the only thing we got and best thing is to improve the bad parts. Getting support for CSSn will make people use it. Just see what happened when Netscape introduced frames and font. Both are crap and still people use them.
Uh, who do you think are sitting in these working groups? Netscape and Microsoft.
/mill
If we have been able to implement postscript interpreters for years CSSn shouldn't be any problem. The problem has been that the implementors rather spent time making up their own proprieraty 'solutions'. They could have been implementing CSSn support, but chose not to.
FYI, W3C do actually implement these concepts they are recommending. See Amaya/Thot and Jigsaw for example.
People have been busy implementing frames, font, layers, marquee, blink, and all kinds of k3wl stuff. Not to mention active desktops and channels.
/mill
i wish mozilla.org would 'digitus dextractus for a year now the s/w industry has been waiting for an alternative to ie5 (yes something on systems other than windows). i dont want to hear wineing about 'lack of developer support' or 'why dont u help et.,al.
it would be nice to have a 'standards compliant' browser sometime this century. come aol spend some of those resources and get that mozilla beast out the door...ms ie is kicking yr but wrt business!
peterrenshaw ~ Another Scrappy Startup
yes it is.
XSL isn't finished yet. XML linking isn't finished yet. Are you saying we should wait for those things to be finished before Mozilla 1.0?
---
I am getting sick of using MSIE just to check certain CSS attributes (background, etc) that Netscape can't handle. Mozilla rules!
Standards should be drafted based on proven designs, not the other way round. Most RFC's are based on working code, why can't this be expected from the W3C?
Let's hope that XML/XSL turns out the be simple and consistent enough in practice to make up for some of the obscenities in web design that HTML + all the incompatible extensions have made necessary. (Allow me to be sceptical, since approximately 1 1/2 years have passed since the introduction of XML by the W3C and I don't see it being used much...)
"I love my job, but I hate talking to people like you" (Freddie Mercury)
Go, Mighty Lizard, go! :-)
Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
So here's another point: even if less than 90% of my visitors used css enabled browsers, I would still use it, because those other users are not going to notice anything "wrong" with my page.
-- Donovan
c't has a comprehensive test and description of CSS (wannabe) capable browser (unfortunately not online). Gecko is best, even in version M3, followed by Opera and IE5.
Things look pretty bad on the CSS 2 side, though.
Anyway, with IE5 trying to undermine the web standards it's excellent to see Mozilla make progress.
IE3? What the hell are you thinking? IE3 made a valiant effort to be css compliant. The standard wasn't there yet, so things don't work exactly right, but it's better than NN3 which has close to NO css support.
NN3 has no css support, which is better than broken css support. IE3 thinks that 1em = 1px. If you don't know why this is really bad, then do some more research. IE3 has to be specifically excluded from stylesheets because its support is so bad.
Not that I'm defending NN4.x
Why not include your style sheet, and then put some font tags in for backward (NN3) compatibility?? Include your css-p div's below the
The point of stylesheets is that we don't have to do this stupid shit anymore. We can code up a set of content and have it display in a usable manner on every browser. If you're trying this hard, then you're doing something wrong.
And there's a good reason not to care about fonts at all.
pooptruck
XSL isn't finished yet. XML linking isn't finished yet. Are you saying we should wait for those things to be finished before Mozilla 1.0?
Quite possibly, yes. Or rather, have Mozilla released without these modules. I'd rather see no implementation than an incorrect implementation that people will start to use. Unless the implementation is forward-compatible, which is tough to do when all you have is a draft spec.
pooptruck
1. I never use em, no need, it can't hurt me if I don't touch it right?
Except that em and % are two of the most useful size units in CSS. It allows elements to be sized relative to how the user wants to see them, instead of in an absolute manner, which can hinder usability. Unfortunately, the IE 3 screws up em very badly, and NN4 screws up % rather badly as well. (sigh)
3. When you have a large audience you have to cover all your bases, so you have to do all that "stupid shit" so you know it looks the same everywhere
If you're trying to do that, then you're doing the wrong thing. My page will
(And yeah, I know...try convincing the suits of that -- I do, and it usually fails, but it's worth trying for anyway.).
I've just learned over the years that it's better to make a page with the added functionality for the users of new tech that is also completely backward compatible. Yeah, it's a bitch, but that's what I get paid for.
That's what I get paid for, too. And that's the exact point of CSS. No matter what, some users get a usable version of the page (if you're doing things right) -- some users may just get a better-looking experience. If your content is interesting, it won't really matter too much to the users.
pooptruck
please! :-)
On a side note, StyleMaster 1.3 shipped this week from an Australian Company, Western Civilisation, and includes fantastic help for determining which CSS features are implemented correctly in various browsers. I was so impressed I went to kagi and paid for it after an hour of use.
You are assuming that websites = pubic websites. Internal "Intranet" websites where you have a controlled client base can and do use CSS.
--
Business. Numbers. Money. People. Computer World.
I am not a Mozilla contributor, but IIRC it's not just Mozilla employees that are contributing. The situation is that while only 30 non-Netscape developers have CVS commit privileges, many other outside developers have submitted and are continuing to submit code to Mozilla. They just don't have CVS commit privileges, probably because you wouldn't want to trust just anyone with commit privileges to your code repository.
Of course, I could be way off base on this, but at one point this is what I read on Slashdot. Sorry, I don't have a reference URL for this.
Your right to not believe: Americans United for Separation of Church and
That can only be good. Keep it up.
Simply Senzuri
CSS works really well for Intra / Extranet situations where you can control which clinet a user must use to access the site.
DrLunch.com The site that tells you what's for lunch!
I think your thinking CSS-P. IE3 doesn't support that because it was practically not even invented yet. But for christ sake man, give credit where credit is due.
Granted CSS (esp css2) is not completely supported on any major platform, and god knows I want it to succeed. I think table layout is the most inconvenient method of placement there is, but what is the big deal? Why not include your style sheet, and then put some font tags in for backward (NN3) compatibility?? Include your css-p div's below the
__
__
nothin' says lovin' like an open source penguin.
2. I thought that NN3 didn't have any css support, but I used the "close to NO" just incase someone knew something that I didn't (there are quite a bunch of people like that)
3. When you have a large audience you have to cover all your bases, so you have to do all that "stupid shit" so you know it looks the same everywhere
I've just learned over the years that it's better to make a page with the added functionality for the users of new tech that is also completely backward compatible. Yeah, it's a bitch, but that's what I get paid for.
__
__
nothin' says lovin' like an open source penguin.
If the standard wasn't it place (even though various versions of it were available), why did MS try to implement into IE3 -- because as it is, the IE3 CSS support is broken to the point of hiding valid content with valid CSS even if the CSS code wasn't meant to do that.
I don't know, I don't work for them
I think moves like this are again only aimed at PHBs to get the product supported, but do little for the web developer or end consumer.
Well said! I'm supporting the WaSP myself, and I'm hoping that we can get a standard HTML/XML parser "lib" and have every browser include it to display the content. Let them do anything they want to the rest of the GUI.
__
__
nothin' says lovin' like an open source penguin.
No one should hold back the release of any browser to build in CSS support. Its a dead technology. Even the W3 people have moved on to XML/XSL development.
Good it is but perfect it ain't. The CSS1 documentation gives a neat way of doing drop-caps, and I toyed with it in an idle moment. Mozilla (Gecko) renders the drop caps *up* from the line; Star Office, interestingly, renders them correctly (although it gets lots of other stuff wrong).
I'm old enough to remember when discussions on Slashdot were well informed.
But i'm going to still have to check out my CSS on older netscapes as half the stuff I try to do crashed netscape.