CSS: The Missing Manual 151
Michael J. Ross writes "Ever since Cascading Style Sheets (CSS) first appeared on the Web scene in the late 1990s, a plethora of books have been written and published that purport to explain how CSS works, and how to make it work for you. So why would any publisher decide that what the technical world needs is yet another CSS book? Perhaps because they have taken a close look at the bulk of those available titles, and found them to be wanting — filled with overly theoretical explanations and sample code that is far too focused on some pet domain of the author. Such books may be adequate for the veteran Web developer, who has the time and inclination to separate the wheat from the chaff. But developers new to CSS need much more approachable material, with clear examples. Perhaps that is the thinking behind CSS: The Missing Manual." Read the rest of Michael's review.
CSS: The Missing Manual | |
author | David Sawyer McFarland |
pages | 494 |
publisher | O'Reilly Media |
rating | 7 |
reviewer | Michael J. Ross |
ISBN | 0596526873 |
summary | An accessible guide to using CSS with HTML. |
Written by David Sawyer McFarland, CSS: The Missing Manual is published by O'Reilly Media, as part of their Pogue Press series, under the ISBN 0596526873. It first came out in August of 2006. The publisher maintains a Web page for the book, where visitors can find a link to register their copy of the book (does anyone do that?), a page for submitting errata (none yet, as of this writing), a form for posting a review on the O'Reilly site (again, be the first!), and a sample chapter (Chapter 1: Rethinking HTML for CSS) as a PDF file. There are also links for purchasing the book in the U.S. or the UK, and for reading the online version, as a part of O'Reilly's Safari service.
The book's 494 pages are organized into 14 chapters and three appendices, grouped into five parts. In addition, there is an index, as well as a terse but meaty introduction, which even includes a summary of HTML. The humor for which the Missing Manual books are known, begins early, in introduction, though in this case probably not intentionally: Page 9 claims that the book "is divided into four parts," and then lists the five parts. Before commenting upon those five-ish four parts, it should be noted that the table of contents runs seven pages, listing the book's parts, chapters, sections, and subsections. Future editions of the book would benefit from an overview table of contents, similar to those used in an increasing number of technical books, to good effect.
The 14 chapters cover most if not all of the essentials: writing HTML for CSS; creating styles and style sheets; determining what to style; using inheritance; using cascading; formatting text; setting margins, padding, and borders; styling graphics; styling links and navigation bars; styling tables and forms; creating float-based layouts; positioning page elements; creating print stylesheets; and writing maintainable CSS code. The three appendices include a CSS property reference, a discussion of CSS use in Dreamweaver version 8, and a listing of CSS resources to supplement the book.
On the positive side of the ledger, the author does a commendable job of clearly explaining all of the essential topics that the typical developer would need to understand in order to begin developing a robust Web site based on HTML and CSS, or reworking an existing site that is in desperate need of an overhaul. The clear explanations and bite-sized examples demonstrate that David Sawyer McFarland is not only an experienced Web developer, but likely has spent considerable time explaining to others how to do the same — as a writer, trainer, and instructor. This book is not his first, for he has previously written Dreamweaver: The Missing Manual.
One valuable aspect of the book under review, is that McFarland discusses how to overcome the most commonly encountered browser problems, in which Web pages employing CSS are not being formatted as one would expect and as specified in the CSS standards, by misbehaving browsers (that means you, "Internet Exploder"). Moreover, the book is also one of the first to document the significantly enhanced, long overdue, and welcomed CSS support in version 7 of the most commonly used Web browser (yes, we're still looking at you, "Browser by Bill").
The book is one in a series of many so-called Missing Manuals, whose tagline is "The books that should have been in the box," and whose Web site characterizes them as "Warm, witty, and jargon-free, [with] enough clarity for the novice, and enough depth and detail for the power user." In many respects, McFarland's latest contribution matches that description. In addition to the straightforward and yet comprehensive discussions of each topic, the author imbues his writing with a bit of humor, without overdoing it, or trying too hard, as is sometimes seen in other books covering subjects that admittedly can be quite dry.
On the negative side of the ledger, someone — or, more likely, some committee — somewhere along the decision chain, stipulated that almost every page of the book should be formatted so that the outside 1.5 inches, which is the easiest for a reader to see, should be consumed by a mostly empty and useless gutter, the bulk of which is filled with a light gray bar. This pushes the text, which slightly more than 4.5 inches wide, further in, toward the book's binding, and thus more difficult to read. This is true even though O'Reilly has wisely chosen to use RepKover, a flexible lay-flat binding. This exasperating style of layout is not characteristic of O'Reilly's books, which are generally much easier to read, with more sensible margins and often larger font.
One of the first principles taught to those learning Web design, is to avoid using white text on a black background. Such Web pages usually try to appear cool and edgy, but instead often comes off as immature in the eyes of an Internet veteran, and sinister to the Internet newbie. It doesn't work on Web sites, and it doesn't work in Web books. Sadly, O'Reilly chose to use white-on-dark-gray for many of the book's sidebars, making them difficult to read, especially as the sidebar text font size appears to be a bit smaller than that of the regular text.
In a nutshell, the content of this book is excellent, while the presentation of that content leaves much to be desired — ironic for a book focusing on CSS, whose primary purpose is to modularize and simplify presentation, neatly separating it from content. Ranking the content and presentation on a scale of 1 to 10, I would give them 9 and 5, respectively. Yet on balance, just as is true for most Web pages, the content is more important than its layout and other aesthetic considerations. CSS: The Missing Manual is a well-written, lighthearted, up-to-date, and easily accessible guide to modern CSS and how to use it in the real world.
You can purchase CSS: The Missing Manual from bn.com. Slashdot welcomes readers' book reviews -- to see your own review here, read the book review guidelines, then visit the submission page.
Now if only (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Now if only (Score:5, Funny)
That's what's so beautiful about standards. There are so many implementations to choose from!
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Anyone wanna bet what's gonna come first?
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Now if only (Score:5, Insightful)
The problem is the browsers like IE that either only partially implement features or (as is most often the case of problems with IE) implement them in a way that goes against the standard. Then you have to either start throwing in cross-browser hacks, browser specific stylesheets, or change your page design.
I will occassionally get in complaints at our webmaster account about how something doesn't render correctly in a certain browser. My reply usually includes some boilerplate about how our site is coded to support a standard, and not specific browsers. If the browser supports the standard correctly, you've got no problems. If the browser is like lynx and doesn't support CSS at all, again no problem and the pages are semantic XHTML so we make thorough use of heading tags and similar 'built-in' context indicators. If you use a browser that doesn't implement the standard correctly, on your head so be it!
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, browsers like IE, such as Firefox.
Just as an example that's on my mind right now, Mozilla does not properly support display: inline-block;. There are two alternate proprietary display proper
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Almost, but not quite right.
It isn't that Mozilla doesn't properly support inline-block, it's that Mozilla doesn't support inline-block. Those proprietary display properties exist prec
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Now if only (Score:4, Informative)
Because inline-block isn't supposed to be there. Not yet. The inline-block property was a proprietary Internet Explorer property. It has been added to CSS 2.1, but that specification is not yet finished - it's a working draft. So far, no finished W3C specification includes inline-block, it's still a non-standard Microsoft extension.
I Use Google (Score:2)
Granted, I probably learned all of this in CS101, but if I need to remember how to do something, I typically perform a google search inst
Keep in mind... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Keep in mind... (Score:4, Insightful)
It requires knowledge. Knowledge is not necessarily achieved by reading manuals cover-to-cover.
My knowledge is almost entirely obtained from experience, trial and error, and reading random web tutorials, articles and sources.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Googling or books (Score:2)
There is something easier about pulling a book off the shelf, finding the section on print stylesheets for example, and having everything about it right there on the page to reference while you are hammering away at the keyboard...
That's why I have my bookshelf where I can reach out and grab a book without getting out of my chair or leaving the desk. Occasionally I'll google for an answer but I prefer a book with a good table of contents and index, it's usually when I don't have the book or the table or
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
However, there are still lots of people that like print. Plus, it is very convenient to have it all in one place. There are great CSS sites, but they usually only cover a few aspects, and even fewer very well. So, for true newbs having a single place to get "all the details" could be beneficial.
Speaking of googling for technical info (or really anything), while it is obvious to some (most
Re: (Score:2)
Google is good for specifics, books are typically better at handling the why, wherefore, and "how does this fit into the big scheme" questions.
I find that most online resources are very good about the "how", but fall far short on explaining the "why" / "where" / "when" questions.
Ahh (Score:5, Funny)
Now that is has been found, they can get back to work.
Now I know why IE has such bad CSS support. (Score:2)
The reason the Windows IE had such bad CSS support was because they didn't work with the Mac IE team. IE 5 for the Mac had better css support than any Windows IE, except maybe IE 7?
FalconRe: (Score:3, Interesting)
Well, IE 7 reportedly only supports 50% of the CSS standard, so if Mac IE 5's CSS standard is worse than than IE 7's, then it would still be pretty awful.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Well, IE 7 reportedly only supports 50% of the CSS standard, so if Mac IE 5's CSS standard is worse than than IE 7's, then it would still be pretty awful.
IE 5 for the Mac supported xhtml, ECMAScript, nearly all of CSS1, much of CSS2, and most of the DOM according to Jeffrey Zeldman [zeldman.com]. So, I guess IE 7 doesn't support standards as much as IE 5 for Macs did.
FalconRe: (Score:3, Funny)
Damn (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The best CSS manual (Score:2, Informative)
http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-CSS2/ [w3.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
http://dezwozhere.com/links.html [dezwozhere.com]
When I give people this link in response to CSS queries, I'm fond of adding "if you can't answer your CSS question within three clicks of that page, your question has no answer (or you chose the wrong three clicks)".
Welcome to my hell. (Score:5, Informative)
CSS is a great idea, but doing it in practice blows because the browsers vary so much in their implementation.
The most useful thing I have found to help is QuirksMode Browser Compatability Tests [quirksmode.org]. I think this guy is insane to have spent so much time testing every single feature in (nearly) every browser, but it is very, very useful to see exactly which browsers support what.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
CSS is a great idea, but doing it in practice blows because the browsers vary so much in their implementation.
I actually find CSS to be very simple in practice, for automated styling and real world use with one caveat: I don't support IE. Seriously. I just follow the spec and it looks great in every browser out there, Firefox, Opera, Safari, whatever. For IE I make sure it sensibly degrades to plain, unformatted hypertext with a note that IE is broken and users should upgrade to any other browser.
Re:Welcome to my hell. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Must be nice to not have to maintain public-facing pages for a large company, or otherwise actually be in the web business.
Yes. Very. *shudder*
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Must be nice to not have to maintain public-facing pages for a large company, or otherwise actually be in the web business.
True. The network security industry usually won't touch IE with a 10 foot pole. We had a really critical IE bug in one of our Web UIs and no one found it for more than a year, until someone used a legacy machine in their testbed as a convenient terminal.
The sad thing is, if all the major companies would pledge to adhere to Web standards and use them along with the aforementioned dow
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
That said we can't afford to not cater to IE users. They make up over 95% of clients. I haven't yet heard a complaint or seen some feedback come through our form stating "omg I gotta use IE!!!"
Re:Welcome to my hell. (Score:4, Informative)
I personally don't think pain is going to bring about change.
But you'll never know because you will bend to MS's lock-in strategy.
The actual functionality isn't an issue across browsers, but yeah the apps I make break in FF, Opera and Safari.
Umm, then yeah it's an issue.
That said we can't afford to not cater to IE users. They make up over 95% of clients.
You must have an unusual site then. Most sites and statistical studies show all versions of IE combined at about 80% of Website hits. As for affording to not cater to them, it all depends upon how you market it to customers and the type of site you run. A simple, "This Web page uses advanced Web 1.5 features from the 1998 standards. Your current browser is out of date and may be insecure. Click here to upgrade if you want to view all formatting properly." might be viewed as a feature, rather than a nuisance, especially if a coalition of major sites decided to do it all at once, so they would no longer have to pay double the development costs to reach the whole market.
I haven't yet heard a complaint or seen some feedback come through our form stating "omg I gotta use IE!!!"
Really do you track that? I know I used to complain when any company I did business with tried to make me use IE only, although now there are more options for everything so I normally just assume they are incompetent and probably clueless. Given that, I don't want to trust any data to them, so I just go elsewhere. Try monitoring the number of hits you get using alternative browsers, which then don't hit again with IE from the same IP address. It is not hard with some basic statistical trackers that you can grab for free. You might be surprised how much business you're losing. The other issue is, alternative browsers often represent the more affluent parts of society. Apple laptops accounted for 20% of laptop sales last month and almost all of them will be using Safari. How many of those people are the ones with lots of disposable income? As I said before, it all depends upon what type of sites you make.
Personally, I'm very happy I no longer have to bother working around all of IE's failures. It has cut my workload down to less than half of what it was. I just wish everyone could have the same easy development I do, without having to worry about anything but clearly documented standards.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe because they do what I do... simply take my business elsewhere.
I'm not going to waste my time or money dealing with people (or businesses) that can't get the obvious stuff right.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
See, it is.
I've already said I don't do business w/ people that don't get the obvious stuff.
So... If for some reason you are the only people that can make a thing-a-ma-jig... I'll just not get a thing-a-ma-jig.
See how that works?
Even tho you may have a monopoly on thing-a-ma-jigs... you don't have a monopoly on thinking. And, I'm a firm believer in TMTOWTDI.
And, I can always just buy more toilet paper if I absolutely have to spend my money somewhere.
You've made the mistake that many
Hell can be bearable... (Score:4, Insightful)
Must be nice to not have to maintain public-facing pages for a large company
Yes, it is quite nice not have to maintain such a site, since most "public-facing pages for a large company" are notoriously and unnecessarily complicated and standards-broken. Furthermore, it is false to say that these sites are broken becasue they must cater to IE. It is in fact the other way around--IE is broken because of the incompetence or (false) laziness, impatience and hubris of the designers and maintainers of these big public sites. MS is to blame for applying sinister "embrace and extend" strategies to its product, however by far the primary responsibility for the current messy state of affairs lies squarely with the codemonkeys who vomit forth the tag soup that all too often continues to pass for web pages today.
Let me explain: when then-leading Netscape introduced nonstandard extensions to HTML, or incorrectly or poorly implemented the standard, rather than report it as a bug web authors actually EMBRACED these quirks rather than working around them or otherwise ignoring them. For example, early web developers heavily abused non-semantic and sometimes annoying proprietary tags like CENTER and BLINK, and went as far as to do atrocious things like nest their content in multiple BODY tags with different BGCOLOR attributes to do useless crap like fading and flashing the screen. The result of this was to not only let Netscape neglect bugs, put to put pressure on Netscape to RETAIN the bugs so as to remain "compatible" with such perverse tag soup!
The phenomenon proved to be viral--in the interests of matching leader Netscape's "feature" set, Microsoft went ahead and emulated all that malarky on purpose in IE! Furthermore, MS realised that nonstandard extensions were rather easily embraced by stupid lazy tag soup codemonkeys. This was a great opportunity to embrace and extend the WWW with such atrocities as ActiveX OBJECTs and heavy promotion of CSS-like styles long before the CSS standard was established. The latter action was particularly incideous because it allows MS to say that they "support standards" when in fact they sabotage them. Rather than warning web authors to use caution with stylesheets until the CSS style was standardised, they went ahead and made sure it was getting well established so that when changes were made to their proposal for CSS was modified by the W3C. By doing that they ensured that their own inconsistent application of CSS would be the de-facto standard and they could let slide any fixes to *actually* follow standards.
So please, make your best effort to break this evil cycle and do NOT design for IE. This doesn't mean that you should let your site break IE or make it look crappy--what it means is do NOT use IE during development without regard to standards then worry about degrading gracefully in other browsers. Instead use FF or another more compliant browser during development, and regularly validating your code using the W3C validation tools. THEN, when you test against IE (this is the real world, so you can't ignore it as the grandparent post implies) you make sure it degrades GRACEFULLY in IE, and do it WITHOUT relying on sneaky CSS bugs and breaking standards.
Yes, you CAN write totally valid XHTML and CSS that looks attractive and retains enough functionality in IE to satisfy your audience. Here are some approaches I have taken in the past:
* Avoid the use of CSS features that are standards but not widely implemented in IE or other mainline browsers, at least for important presentational aspects (anything more than eye candy).
* Do NOT strive to make the page appear or function fully and exactly the same in IE as other browsers--just make sure it doesn't look "broken" in IE. MS has deliberately "dumbed down" their pages for non-IS browsers in the past (even when other browsers were perfectly capable of handling the page as designed for IE). Given
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Welcome to my hell. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Welcome to my hell. (Score:5, Interesting)
I follow the standards and still have it looking decent in IE. I never use "IE hacks" (as in deliberately malformed statements or comments), and I never use browser detection (both are basically a bit retarded imho) -- but I can still get the pages to look OK in IE, served exactly the same (validated) CSS.
There are just a few caveats:
Admittedly our main website is horrible non-standards HTML4 with patchy use of hack-filled CSS, but I didnt design it, and I can't fix it because even when I enter valid markup, our lousy CMS (built firmly on the MS stack with the MS toolchain, just to feed your prejudices) will bodge it up for me. Grrr.
But the new microsites I design are 100% standards compliant and they look 99% the same in IE or Moz/etc. My management wouldn't have it any other way.
Oh, I forgot to ask... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Weird, I had posted another reply to your original message thanking you for your post, but I guess I must not have hit the submit button. Anyway, it was just thanking you for an encouraging post for a CSS beginner after seeing so many posts complaining about CSS.
Re: (Score:2)
You're not serious, are you? if you're developing for a large company you almost always have to support IE--like it or not.
The pages are for paying customers, not our public Website. Most of them are accessible from within a Web UI for a product we sold them. The pages are viewed by network security experts at enterprise and major ISPs, not Bob Smith looking to buy something online from his home computer. None of these people really use IE. We had a major bug making one of our UIs unusable in IE and no o
Re: (Score:2)
But, yeah, this has nothing to do with the standard and everything to do with the implementation (for the most part, anyway).
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
The fact that IE doesn't know where various pieces of CSS (like margins and borders) are supposed to be rendered and calculated pretty much puts the lie to your comment.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Safari, Opera, Konqueror, and iCab. Plus one HTML-to-PDF converter and a mobile browser. There's a great list of Acid2 status [howtocreate.co.uk] here. And yes, Firefox is looking at
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Your argument is that since slashdot uses CSS, and since slashdot looks good, IE handles CSS properly?
I'm not entirely sure which logical fallacy this is, but I think it's the "Deductive Fallacy".
Re: (Score:2)
Given the dismal level of CSS support [webdevout.net] in IE (57% of CSS 2.1 in IE7, compared to upwards of 90% for Firefox 1.5 and Opera 9), it's quite easy to write properly standards-compliant CSS that IE just doesn't understand.
Writing standards-compliant code is a good start, but you also have to do one or more of the following:
Grumble... (Score:1)
And way too many half-baked blogs out there on both subjects as well.
Where are all the Really Good(tm) books and sites?
Mumblefuhtz...
Re: (Score:1, Informative)
Books:
The Zen of CSS Design, Eric Meyer on CSS. Two excellent books to get you started. The concept of CSS layout design is the big hurdle, once you figure it out, it's a breeze and quite fun.
Websites
www.w3schools.com - Excellent for html too. Read up here about semantics. http://www.w3.org/Style/Examples/007/ [w3.org] - Something else from W3C. This shows you some stuff you will need once you start getting the concepts of CSS down.
Here's some advice from me: Start with healthy HTML. If your HTML is not
Re: (Score:2)
How can you mention that book without providing a link to the CSS Zen garden [csszengarden.com]?
Re: (Score:2)
How is the concept of CSS layout hard? It's not even complicated.
Making CSS actually do the things that you want it to, that is hard. Especially since no browser properly handles CSS. NONE. Except maybe Opera, which at least can pass ACID2. Still, if you do anything even slightly complicated with positioning in Mozilla/Firefox/whatever, it will get it wrong. You will have to use hacks.
This is no
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
No, not even Opera. Keep in mind that Acid2 is not a compliance test. It tells you that the browser handles a certain set of HTML, CSS, protocols and errors properly, but it doesn't indicate full and/or proper implementation of any level of CSS.
There's a great set of comparisons at WebDevout.net [webdevout.net] (surf around the site for more detailed tables). Opera 9 is certainly in the lead with 94% of CSS 2.1 by that site's me
Re: (Score:2)
I think I already talked about this in a response to you, but search around and read up on how Firefox treats display: inline-block; - notably, it fucks up, and you need to use the proprietary value display: -moz-inline-box; to get the behavior you were looking for.
The simple fact is that no browser supports the full CSS spec, even 2.1, and so there are simply things that CSS says you can do that do n
Too many choices? (Score:2)
Too many CSS and Javascript books out there already.
And as we all know, having choices SUCKS!
Seriously, how is this different from any other computer-related topic? There are zillions of Java books, only some of which are useful to you. The book that is useful to me may not be useful to you. There are Missing Manuals, Head Start, Head Rush, Visual Quickstart, Nutshell, Definitive Guide, Cookbook, Hacks, for Dummies, for Smarties, Programmer to Programmer, and many other different styles of computer bo
missing rule!? (Score:2)
Amazon has it cheaper (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Too late. (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Except that it doesn't do things that tables do. For instance, I can't say that div#1 and div#2, which are next to each other, take up the entire width of the page even though div#1 has a fixed width. You know, like the most common basic page layout with a sidebar and a content area. With tables, I can just create a table with three trs, the header and footer are colspan=2, the width of the center-sidebar table is 200px or whatever, an
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The second div's size will now change if it feels like it, because it does not have a specified width.
If you were to read the GP you would find that was exactly what was asked for...those of us who can actually read are now snickering at you.
What's Missing? (Score:1)
googling is fine? (Score:2)
But I really don't see a need for a new book on the matter... googling "CSS" suffices.
Googling for you may be fine but many of us, including me, want hardcopy. For one staring at a long screen of text hurts my eyes and others have the same problem. Two, I learn and retain better by doing. I've been looking for a good book on CSS, one with exercises. I'll then be able to read the book and do the exercises as I read. With a book I won't have to think about eye strain or switching between windows. Sim
man css (Score:2)
No manual entry for css
Hmmm, guess they were right.
I don't understand (Score:2)
Comma Chameleon (Score:2, Informative)
Speaking of "more difficult to read," while I'm as big a fan of using commas as the next talentless hack, maybe this review could've done without roughly half of the little buggers that are sprinkled throughout.
CSS Zen Garden (Score:3, Informative)
However for some inspiration about what CSS can do for you a trip to the CSS Zen Garden at http://www.csszengarden.com/ [csszengarden.com] is worth a thousand pages of dry css scripts. The recently published book 'the Zen of CSS design' is also excellent - http://www.amazon.com/Zen-CSS-Design-Enlightenmen
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Manuals are fine, but most can be replaced by the various excellent websites around - w3schools is mentioned below and I'd agree with that.
Books can't be replace for all people. Though I have Zen Garden bookmarked if I read much I have to have hardcopy to read from otherwise I get eye strained and will get a headache. Looking at little bits and pieces on a screen is alright but longer pages play havoc with my eyes. Also if I'm trying to learn something I much prefer to have a book to go through especi
Re: (Score:2)
That said, I have to agree. Webpages are a good supplement to books, but not a replacement.
Re: (Score:2)
One could, of course, print out a hard copy from a webpage. :-/
That said, I have to agree. Webpages are a good supplement to books, but not a replacement.
Yea, I mentioned printing out a page. And if it's only a few pages then you're saving trees, a better way to save trees is to use hemp to make paper with, this way instead of buying a book. However unless you're a natural organizer if you're printing out a lot you may find it hard to find a printout later, I think books are much better as a refere
Re: (Score:2)
I must have missed that part. The other advantage of books for me is that I tend to skim less with them.
I wish they would convert over to using more rag, linen, and hempen paper for books. Wood paper has poor archival properties, in addition to putting an awful strain on the forests. I'm not opposed to harvesting of trees (my grandfather was a sawyer and a logger), but I hate the wanton destruction of trees just to produce largely disposable paper products.
You're right about reference. I'd much rather
I wish they would convert over to using more rag, (Score:2)
linen, and hempen paper for books.
Same here, and not just for books but for writing and printing. I'm not sure about rag but there are linen and hemp papers available for writing and some specialty shops have linen paper for printers though I don't know if they have any hemp paper that can be used in printers.
FalconMy internet... (Score:2)
My internet didn't come in a box... it came in a tube!
Chapter 13:Displaying tabular data without "table" (Score:5, Funny)
Not available online yet.. (Score:2)
CSS question (Score:2)
I have 3 divs. A main div which encloses the other 2. One is floated to the left, one to the right.
If i don't set a height on the container div, on firefox the divs will grow out of the bottom border of the div, but on IE6 the container grows automatically. OK, i just set overflow:auto to the container div and both browsers work fine.
But, if i put content to the left div, and use the right div for images and such, the right div wont grow to match th
Re: (Score:2)
[1] http://css-discuss.incutio.com/?page=AnyColumnLong est [incutio.com]
title (Score:2)
So then this isn't the "missing" manual, it's a "new and improved" manual.
Book publishing layout (Score:2)
"I have a truly marvelous stylesheet that solves all of IE's CSS problems, alas which this margin is too narrow to contain.
Re: (Score:2)
They could make a huge leap forward on this front by making one small change: Turning on the "standards compliant"* mode by DEFAULT!
*I use this term in the loosest possible sense
Re: (Score:2)
They could make a huge leap forward on this front by making one small change:
rebranding Firefox?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The sad thing is, that even if it does, the take up of IE7 is going to be so slow that IMHO, I expect well over 50% of IE users to still be using IE 6 or lower for years. Even with all the security problems, people continue to use very old versions of IE - because they simply don't care, thier "Internet" works, so why should they change it.
In short, IE 7 getting better support for CSS isn't going to make life any easier for web developers, it's not goi
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)