W3c - Css2.1

Dee · #1 (**permalink**) 07-28-2009, 11:02 AM

Ok, maybe this belongs in programming talk, but I just have a couple of generic questions.

1. I've been reading on the W3c site that the recommendation for Css2.1 was scheduled for 'review' on July 23. They are still working out some of the bugs. I also keep seeing references to Css3 in other forums. WHich would you study? Css2, Css2.1, or Css3?

2. What does the term UA mean? I see that in a lot of what's going on at W3c. I have not been able to track down a meaning. Here's a sample sentence:
Every relevant test in the test suite should have an equivalent test created if such a UA is to be used to claim interoperability. In addition if such a UA is to be used to claim interoperability, then there must one or more additional UAs which can also pass those equivalent tests in the same way for the purpose of interoperability. The equivalent tests must be made publicly available for the purposes of peer review.
implementation

meloncholy · #2 (**permalink**) 07-28-2009, 06:14 PM

CSS 2.1 is basically a bugfix release, incorporating errata, adding a few features already widely implemented in browsers and removing a few unused properties. CSS 3 has quite a few new and exciting features, such as border-radius (ooh!), opacity (ooh!) and multiple background images (aaah!).

I guess if I were choosing one to study now, I'd go for CSS 2.1 because this is what most modern browsers support (largely). But this of course brings us on to one of the big issues with standards like this: if a property in CSS 2.1 isn't supported by browsers, it's useless.

I try to follow the W3C standards partly because it feels right and makes me happy, but mainly because most browsers try to adhere to them (predictable behaviour now) and are increasingly doing so over time (predictable behaviour in the future). Or to put it another way, I do it because the browsers (collectively) do it like that, not because W3C does.

I often use the opacity, despite it being a CSS 3 property, because I know most browsers today support it (and for IE, I use -ms-filter: "progid: DXImageTransform.Microsoft.Alpha(opacity=50)" because it works and doesn't upset other clients). I've also used border-radius (together with -moz-border-radius and -webkit-border-radius) because I know that will work nicely in Firefox, Safari and Chrome, and that Opera and IE will just display a square box.

Keeping an eye on CSS 3 developments and browser support is not a bad idea - this page has a long list of features and current browser support (though may be out of date, as IE8 isn't there and Fx 3.1/3.5 may not be either. Edit: Oops, I missed the pick browsers link at the top). I've also just found this page of CSS 3 previews. It's also perhaps worth mentioning that JavaScript libraries such as jQuery add support for quite a few of the CSS 3 selectors (:nth-child, :checked, etc.) and other stuff today.

And while I'm wittering on, don't forget about the whole XHTML 2 vs HTML 5 thing too.

Edit: UA = user agent, or browser.

Quote:

A user agent is any program that interprets a document written in the document language and applies associated style sheets according to the terms of this specification. A user agent may display a document, read it aloud, cause it to be printed, convert it to another format, etc.

sgtmac66 · #3 (**permalink**) 07-28-2009, 06:55 PM

I am just building my site, and thought I was using CSS-2. That is until I validated my pages. On w3c validator, even though I had CSS2 it validated out at 2.1 and I had to make additional changes...Don't tell me about others, 'm not ready!!

k2zs · #4 (**permalink**) 07-28-2009, 06:56 PM

Basically think of W3c as the Websters Dictionary of web and css development. In that first line of code on your page:

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Transitional//EN" "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-transitional.dtd">

you are telling browsers where to look up the definitions of the terms you use to write your code. CSS is css but what you end up with is more terms to use as the versions progress. The <SPAN> tag was a useful improvement that popped up at some version. If you learn css x.x than your still learning all the others, it's more the concept than the version.

sgtmac66 · #5 (**permalink**) 07-28-2009, 07:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by k2zs

Basically think of W3c as the Websters Dictionary of web and css development. In that first line of code on your page:

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Transitional//EN" "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-transitional.dtd">

you are telling browsers where to look up the definitions of the terms you use to write your code. CSS is css but what you end up with is more terms to use as the versions progress. The <SPAN> tag was a useful improvement that popped up at some version. If you learn css x.x than your still learning all the others, it's more the concept than the version.

Yeah, the other thing is that it Re-rendered the DOCTYPE as XHTML Strict in lieu of transitional. BTW, I don't have the new code on the site yet...

Dee · #6 (**permalink**) 07-28-2009, 07:14 PM

I like to keep up with the latest changes. I was talking to a friend who wants to teach her son HTML, and she insists on teaching him some things that have been or will be deprecated, or greatly changed, like tables.(I think tables are easier in CSS - don't know why anyone would hold on to all that HTML writing of tables). I'd rather get as close to right as I can starting off. I think I'll do a combo of 2.1 and 3.

Meloncholy, you really hit the nail on the head.

sgtmac66 · #7 (**permalink**) 07-28-2009, 07:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dee

I like to keep up with the latest changes. I was talking to a friend who wants to teach her son HTML, and she insists on teaching him some things that have been or will be deprecated, or greatly changed, like tables.(I think tables are easier in CSS - don't know why anyone would hold on to all that HTML writing of tables). I'd rather get as close to right as I can starting off. I think I'll do a combo of 2.1 and 3.

Meloncholy, you really hit the nail on the head.

I started to use the CSS tables when I first looked into this thing, which I really liked. But some others here turned me onto the Divs which are the latest.

Dee · #8 (**permalink**) 07-29-2009, 09:33 AM

Div's are sweet. There's so much you can do with them. I just bought a book called CSS - The Lost Manual. I've only gotten through the 1st 20 pages, but it's an easy read. For the longest, I could not get through my head the process of connecting CSS codes with the HTML, you know, how one bit of code referred to the other, but Lisa's videos really put all that in perspective. So now, I feel armed and ready.

I'm especially interested in CSS from a graphical design standpoint. I want to do artwork with web design like what is shown at Creamy CSS and Zen Garden. Yummy.

meloncholy · #9 (**permalink**) 08-02-2009, 03:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dee

I like to keep up with the latest changes. I was talking to a friend who wants to teach her son HTML, and she insists on teaching him some things that have been or will be deprecated, or greatly changed, like tables.(I think tables are easier in CSS - don't know why anyone would hold on to all that HTML writing of tables). I'd rather get as close to right as I can starting off. I think I'll do a combo of 2.1 and 3.

Meloncholy, you really hit the nail on the head.

Glad to help.

If you haven't found it already, check out HTML Dog - it's a great resource for learning compliant HTML and CSS. And perhaps think about forwarding it to your friend if you think you can get away with it.

One other thing you should get if you haven't already is Firebug. When you come across a site feature you like, you can use the inspect button to find out how it was put together and which styles have been applied. (Though I wouldn't start with CSS Zen Garden, as the markup there is hugely redundant and many designers replace large portions of the page with images.) It's also a great way to debug your own code of course.

WB Sponsors