Wednesday, 05 May 2004, 19:43:05 EDT
Earlier today I decided to write an example web page to reference in the web design course I am writing. I came up with a, what I think to be, rather nifty design that shows the advantages of a CSS design. It is a design that would be rather tricky to do effectively with tables but is actually quite simple with CSS. The markup is negligible and much smaller than it would be if done without CSS. So, I had this design all made up and ready to begin writing about it when I decided to check it in IE. It was at this point that I said "what the hell?!?" and began working on a nice little hack that renders the page appropriately in IE and Mozilla. My "hack" is slightly eloquent and works just fine; I went on with the rest of my day beaming with pride at my little accomplishment.
After lunch I went around campus taking pictures hoping to get something useful for a Zen Garden design. After deciding that what I was trying to do wouldn't work right I started browsing through the designs already available. I came across the The Question Why design and was instantly dumbfounded because it works exactly like the way I designed my simple example page. There is one slight difference; the Zen Garden design is positioning elements by specifying pixels whilst I am specifying percentages. His way the page is static and will always take up certain space whereas with my way the page works with almost any resolution used. So, why didn't my concept work? Because the people that wrote IE are a retarded. IE only supports absolute positioning when you use pixels to specify the positions.
Have I mentioned lately that I abhor Internet Explorer?
- Internet Explorer