
General Development



Permalink for comment 586032
RE[6]: HTML?
by dpJudas on Thu 3rd Apr 2014 18:21 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: HTML?"
Member since:

These comments would have been fair back when CSS 2 wasn't fully supported. But it is completely nonsense now.

If you write semantic and well structured HTML there is no problem. If you use well understood patterns (Object Orientated CSS and Atomic Design for example) it is extremely easy to create web components.

As for dealing with Minor Quirks. Use a CSS framework, the hard work is done for you. All these comments come out of not actually learning it properly.

HTML + CSS certainly has come a long way they last 15 years, especially with the aid of jquery and browsers supporting all of CSS 2 reliably by now.

But the key issue HTML and CSS has always had is that both were designed for text document layout. The page is always laid out top down and the CSS cascade only really makes sense in a text document context. Same applies to the concept of semantic tags - there are no tags for describing complex controls beyond the generic div tag. It is exactly for reasons like this that vertical alignment and layout is so difficult in CSS and creating controls (what your silly article tries to describe using comical references to the periodic system) is equally hard.

There are of course hacks and workarounds for the problems and even CSS 3 specs trying to address some of these issues - but pages like you linked really just confirms that even the most basic concepts from traditional UI frameworks are only now beginning to be possible to implement with a combination of HTML, CSS 3 and Javascript.

Reply Parent Score: 3