Re: [OT] style sheets (was Re: [SG] David's KraVak rules)

Quoting steve@pugh.net:

> Yep, that's how it's supposed to work. Web pages are not meant to 
> look the same on all browsers. Style sheets make suggestions as to 
> the presentation and browsers apply those suggestions as best they 
> can, maybe in combination with a user style sheet. So long as the 
> underlying HTML is structurally sound the style sheets merely add an 
> optional presentation on top of it. 

I mean things like I'd say "Do this in white" and one browser would and
one 
wouldn't... they're fiddly little ill defined things: you can change the
text 
colour unless it's underlined and in a table and... something else...
sort of 
thing.

And edit box styles don't change at all in any of the versions of
Netscape I've 
been near.. 

> Regular HTML is just what you should have before you start applying 
> the CSS. The problem is irregular HTML - the 1997 era stuff: all font 
> tags, nested tables and spacer GIFs. Yuck.

That's what I ended up using, because I couldn't find a set of font CSS 
settings that would even look consistent across browsers. Font tags on 
everything fits the "when in doubt use brute force" philosophy...

Thankfully I don't have to do that sort of thing anymore, I've been
demoted to 
dealing with the Windows API instead...