[thelist] hiding CSS

aardvark roselli at earthlink.net
Sun Apr 14 22:56:01 CDT 2002

> From: Erik Mattheis <gozz at gozz.com>
> Agreed, I'm not saying it's _always bad_ to use @import, but the
> simple fact is that it's an insufficient method in some cases: there
> are _major_ differences in CSS interpretation among browsers that
> understand @import. If you don't run into those differences, fine, use
> it ... but apparently Duncan has run into one of the situations where
> you can't.

i'm still waiting to see if he can find a true IE4 install, first...

> >if we switched to JS instead of @import, we'd now punish not just
> >users of older browsers, but users without JS enabled on their
> >primary browsers -- like me...
> Well, you may be in the position to confirm why I consider requiring
> JavaScript in order to see the styled HTML: People who don't use
> JavaScript enabled browsers don't care about the style of the
> presentation.

there's a difference between a browser that has no JS capabiliity, and a
browser that just has it disabled...

in the former, you're assuming Lynx, and you may be generally correct -- the
user doesn't care about layout within that context...  but if you don't assume
Lynx, and assume some other browsers that may not have JS capability, but
could read CSS (Amaya?), then you'd be incorrect...

in the latter, you have me... surfing in IE5.5, N6, O6... JS disabled... i use the
browsers *because* i want to see cleaner, nicer layout (i do surf in Lynx
regularly when i'm just info-crawling)...  so, no, my lack of interest in JS has
no relationship to my desire to see pretty layout...

anyway, i'm just assuming i've misinterpreted you, because your assertion
sounds all wrong to me...

> So what's wrong with not showing them styles? Certainly you're not
> advocating a site that requires CSS ...  that would be unlike you!

what's wrong with not showing them styles is that there's no reason *not* to...
JS != CSS, so not having JS enabled shouldn't automagically result in no
CSS -- NN4.x only had that flaw thanks to its JSSS implementation...

conversely, if i were to 'disable' CSS, should JS also go with it?  should they
be inextricably linked?  surely you wouldn't advocate having things like
disabling images, cookies, or CSS result in automatic disabling of JS... that
would be unlike you!

> Maybe someone else can suggest modifying the syntax of @import - but
> if that doesn't work, the only solutions left (that I can think of)
> are
> a. use a combination of JavaScript and @import
> b. require JavaScript
> c. Forget about what you were trying to do

i'd go with (c) before i even hack the @import syntax, but i try to be a purist,
so that's a given...

and by (c), i think we both mean try to find another way to do it... failing that,
gut it...

More information about the thelist mailing list