Stan Brown wrote:
Quote:
Maybe I'm missing something, but isn't that backwards thinking? |
Um, no.
Quote:
It sounds like your criterion is not to have a particular appearance |
Of course it's not. My criterion is to have a nice appearance. That's
why I like the Core Styles - as long as I have a pretty "normal"
document that's marked up properly, I can use any of them and have it
look good. I lucked out in that I already used the "offsite" class for
links to external sites, which is exactly what the Core Styles use.
Quote:
and especially not to produce a usable Web site, but to use the
latest features for their own sake. |
Whoa, slow down, pardner...how are you jumping to this conclusion? My
website is _perfectly_ usable the way it is right now: valid HTML,
workable in any browser ever made. It's just very plain.

My sites
do not need CSS to be usable - if they did, they'd be broken, as I often
posted when I was a ciwa* regular back in 1999-2001. I'm not doing web
devel full time anymore, so I've fallen a bit out of touch with the
latest resources, hence my question.
Quote:
Wouldn't it make more sense to figure out first what sort of
appearance will serve your pages better? |
Why? As long as it looks "nice", I'm not too particular.
I was hoping for updated Core-Style-like stylesheets because the
existing ones look rather plain by today's standards, when so many more
features are available. Sure, someone with design talent obviously
spent some time to pick good color combinations and set up spacing that
would look nice with virtually any document, but I can't help but think
that if more tools (generated content and opacity come to mind) had been
available at the time that they would have been used to provide an even
richer visual appearance.
Tim