Talk:CSS/Archive 2

message: It seems to me that recently web designers are starting to add sections to their site dedicated to documenting all their experiments with CSS. Examples include:
*cs/edge|
*Newt Edge
*CSS Play
*CSS Destroy
*CSS Experiments
*Virtuelvis Gallery
I'm going to add a section about it, but I want it to be edited by someone with more experience or even removed entirely if it's not apropriate.
--Wranga 10:46, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  CSS Experiments 

message: Once again the fundamental W3C documents that define CSS and how to use it correctly have been removed from the References section, this time by user:Rufous on the basis of "duplicate links and redundancy".  I fail to see how we can leave these out of the References section of such an article; that leaves us with a crib-sheet and a cheat-sheet on some private web sites as our primary references!
This is a level of dumbing-down that I don't think is acceptable for an encyclopedia, but I dont want to get into a personal edit-war over it.
Here are the links I put in a short time ago (for reference ;-):
*Cascading Style Sheets W3C CSS Home page	 
*Cascading Style Sheets, level 1 W3C Recommendation 17 Dec 1996, revised 11 Jan 1999	 
*Cascading Style Sheets, level 2 revision 1 W3C CSS 2.1 Specification - Working Draft
--Nigelj 20:20, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Cascading_Style_Sheets#References? ¦ Reisio 00:16, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  W3C spec documents are fundamental references 

message: Shouldn't we be using the '::' notation for pseudo elements instead of ':'? CSS3 Selectors module says that only pseudoelements defined in CSS2(.1) can take the ':' notation and should be referred to using '::' - all new pseudo elements must use '::'. CSS2 and CSS3 Selectors are both candidate recommendation level so I don't see any reason to use the old style. Robin Whittleton 13:09, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: None of the new pseudo-elements are mentioned on this page yet that I'm aware of — which is fine, since support is just about nonexistent and CSS3 Selectors is a candidate recommendation (not, as you said, the same status as CSS2, which is a full recommendation).  It would be premature, I think.  ¦ Reisio 22:01, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed. While textual pseudo elements like ::first-line are somewhat supported, it would be needless to add this to the article at present. Eventually a full CSS Selectors page will be written, and the info can go there. Rufous 22:38, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

text: The old REC level may be equivalent to today's CR, but that means there's a new REC level (as other things of the same approximate age as CSS3 Selectors are marked REC).  Even with that aside: Hixie does not run the W3C (or manage the official naming of specs, either, apparently), CSS3 Selectors is not a REC, the most popular browsers in the world do not support the new pseudo-elements yet, and as the spec itself says, usage of a single colon is fine for the existing CSS1 & 2 pseudo-elements. ¦ Reisio 00:44, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pseudo element notation 

message: I think the first lead paragraph does a good job of laying out specifically what CSS does, but I think the first sentence of the Overview ("CSS is used by both the authors and readers of  web pages to define colors, fonts, layout, and other aspects of document presentation.") should be moved into the lead to help punch up the lead as a whole. The reason I don't just do this is that I'm not sure how to rework the beginning of the Overview. The lead currently only mentions that CSS can be used for presentation once and doesn't really mention what that entails. I just don't think the lead currently fits WP:LS --Rballou 22:11, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Idea for the lead paragraphs

message: what is wcss? Mathiastck 01:10, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:RD ¦ Reisio 18:06, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I think it is WAP CSS. I don't know for a fact though. --Rballou 19:19, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  wcss? 

message: It's time to do some housekeeping of this article's external links section. As WP:SPAMHOLE mentions, "When the external links section is broken down into subsections, you know something is seriously wrong". I've started by removing a link that has been admittedly spammed here (see ). --AbsolutDan (talk) 12:52, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm about to do a major culling of external links as what's here is outrageous - over 60 links with the vast majority repetitive and unencyclopaedic.  I'm suggesting we start again and scrutinise every new link before its added.  No doubt they'll be howls from the website owners, but I'd like to hear a justification for each before its added.  Read WP:EL and remember that this is an encyclopaedia and not a Google replacement - there's no justification for lists of links to tutorials and tools in an encyclopaedia. -- Moondyne 14:56, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  EL Cleanup 

message: I had added a link to cssmate which is a free online CSS editor. It is intended to give people an easy and instant practical experience with CSS. Maybe you'll call me the first howling site owner but I partially disagree with your statement “there's no justification for lists of links to tutorials and tools in an encyclopedia”. I use an encyclopedia for a brief introduction to the topic and use the references and external links to acquire more detailed information. So I do expect links to tutorials and - especially in case of web technologies – to online tools where applicable. Compared to thousands of matches for “css tutorial” and “css tool” I get in search engines 60 commented links appear of value to me. As the “External links” section is the very last it doesn’t matter to much how long it is. As long as the content of the sites matches the description people can decide themselves to use them.
What do you think?
SESchreiber 21:01, 22 October 2006 (GMT)
*You have my sympathies. However, I hope you can appreciate the perceived appearance of impropriety on this matter. The burden of proof is on you. --Cheers, Folajimi (leave a note) 22:07, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reply to EL Cleanup 

message: What is the criteria to list Cascading Style Sheets, designing for the Web under external links and not under further reading?
Why is CSS home page at W3C listed under references and under external links?
Why are references numbered and the other link sections are bulleted?
--SESchreiber 06:30, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  References, Further reading, External links 

message: What's the difference between the two? The article just states that they are equivalent, but on , I found:
Many people use both. The reason is that linking one style sheet and then importing the next does two things:
1) Import integrates the stylesheet into the prvious stylesheet, so that they do not override each other if they both cover the same elements.
2) adding the link first prevents the page from first loading a non-CSS layout of the webpage first, then loading the CSS-layout. Works especially well in IE... at least, that is what several of the websites are saying out there
Posted by Sean on April 11, 2005 06:51 PM
70.111.218.254 04:27, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: ⇾WP:RD ¦ Reisio 19:22, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Import vs. link ref 

message: how do you make default layouts????
:⇾WP:RD ¦ Reisio 09:39, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Default Lays on myspace 

message: The article says "it is widely accepted that IE has the worst..."
I happen to disagree with that statement.  Also, the release of IE 7 has likely eliminated the author's worries.  It's difficult to say, however, exactly what those concerns are since no specifics were given.  Is this just another example of fashionable Microsoft bashing? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.4.70.65 (talk) 09:28, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Difficulty with Adoption of CSS 

message: Is there anyway to use this color/font changing system to change the colors of the links on wikipedia? it would be quite useful in the case of my userpage, where blue isn't reflected so good.  scrumshus Talk to me 23:29, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: links colors

message: I'm unclear as to why we need links to authors' web sites if we have ISBN links. In most cases, this is just to promotional material. Yes, I know the sites also have errata and sample code, but it seems folks can get plenty of that by using the dmoz.org link in the external links section.
* http://www.oreilly.com/catalog/css
* http://www.aw-bc.com/catalog/academic/product/0,1144,0321193121,00.html
* http://www.ericmeyeroncss.com
* http://more.ericmeyeroncss.com
* http://www.simplebits.com/publications/solutions
* http://css24.com
* http://www.zeldman.com/dwws
* http://www.csskarma.com/
Before I just started hacking away, I though I'd raise the issue here first. --A. B. (talk) 20:51, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Cascading Style Sheets#Further reading|"Further reading"]] 

message: Some type of hidden .swf spam? I reverted.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cascading_Style_Sheets&diff=100787669&oldid=100786743 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by ThreeDee912 (talk • contribs) 02:40, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hidden .swf in article? 

message: There was a mention of this here, but this main CSS article doesn't mention how personal CSSes relate to Wikipedia. It would be cool if someone in the know could help. Kennard2 09:07, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no such thing, but they probably mean user stylesheets. They are stylesheets the user can install in their browser to overrule author stylesheets (author stylesheets are those in webpages). Carewolf 09:54, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Compicated. Kennard2 03:31, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  What is a personal CSS? 

message: Should this be added to external links CSS category? It is a comprehensive list of the best CSS websites, blogs, etc.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Stokelake (talk • contribs) 
:Looks new and untested. It's unclear who maintains the list or whether it will be well maintained. You also seem to have mass added the dfinitive site to a lot of articles (which is spamming Mass added and spam accusations are hyperbole on my part, I'm sorry, and I take this back) - So no.  It doesn't look like a good addition. -- Siobhan Hansa 18:54, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  http://dfinitive.com