<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: CSS Sucked my Soul</title>
	<atom:link href="http://labnotes.org/2008/06/29/css-sucked-my-soul/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://labnotes.org/2008/06/29/css-sucked-my-soul/</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 18 Mar 2010 06:29:32 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Jos Hirth</title>
		<link>http://labnotes.org/2008/06/29/css-sucked-my-soul/comment-page-1/#comment-140759</link>
		<dc:creator>Jos Hirth</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 04 Jul 2008 12:36:46 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.labnotes.org/?p=1078#comment-140759</guid>
		<description>It&#039;s really great how even the most simple things (those CSS was invented for) feel like a hack. Everything is done indirectly through a needle&#039;s eye. Everything would be easier with a proper programming language for this task. And more importantly the required time wouldn&#039;t be completely random.

Additionally, the correctness of the implementation would be easier to verify.

I really hate the mess CSS currently is. I really really do. There are a dozen /creative/ techniques to do the very same thing... and all of those fail in different obscure ways. Who wants something like that?

I&#039;d rather write two times as much (in a sane programming language) as the perfect solution with CSS would be. Simply because actually doing that on the first try never seems to happen in reality. I usually have to redo pieces over and over again. Sometimes I&#039;m forced to add extra markup etc. A /massive/ rather complicated specification really isn&#039;t doing anyone any good.

And then there is that damage amplifier called Internet Explorer. Bah! :v</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>It&#8217;s really great how even the most simple things (those CSS was invented for) feel like a hack. Everything is done indirectly through a needle&#8217;s eye. Everything would be easier with a proper programming language for this task. And more importantly the required time wouldn&#8217;t be completely random.</p>
<p>Additionally, the correctness of the implementation would be easier to verify.</p>
<p>I really hate the mess CSS currently is. I really really do. There are a dozen /creative/ techniques to do the very same thing&#8230; and all of those fail in different obscure ways. Who wants something like that?</p>
<p>I&#8217;d rather write two times as much (in a sane programming language) as the perfect solution with CSS would be. Simply because actually doing that on the first try never seems to happen in reality. I usually have to redo pieces over and over again. Sometimes I&#8217;m forced to add extra markup etc. A /massive/ rather complicated specification really isn&#8217;t doing anyone any good.</p>
<p>And then there is that damage amplifier called Internet Explorer. Bah! :v</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
