<?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"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Why Does CSS have to suck</title>
	<atom:link href="http://robert.accettura.com/blog/2004/08/29/why-does-css-have-to-suck/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://robert.accettura.com/blog/2004/08/29/why-does-css-have-to-suck/</link>
	<description>Robert Accettura's Personal Blog on Web Development and Tech</description>
	<pubDate>Sun,  7 Sep 2008 00:54:59 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6.1</generator>
		<item>
		<title>By: Mark</title>
		<link>http://robert.accettura.com/blog/2004/08/29/why-does-css-have-to-suck/#comment-202484</link>
		<dc:creator>Mark</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 10 Oct 2007 13:37:49 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://robert.accettura.com/archives/2004/08/29/why-does-css-have-to-suck/#comment-202484</guid>
		<description>Okay, so I am trying to redesign our webpage to make it more easy to navigate (with more front end links) so I found a CSS template that looked like it fit the bill.  So I start to modify it...wait a minute...nothing logical is working.  I change the page's link colors and they show up still the wrong color online, so I go to the CSS file...change it there....still they show up the wrong color???  WHAT???  Who is controlling this page, the CSS file or the page itself, and if they cannot agree...THEN what happens?  I also cannot get the flash gallery to center and scale in the 'content area'.  Instead it pushes around the menus and lowers them.  WHAT the heck?  I am spending more time digging through the 500 line CSS file trying to find the correct mark-up than actually doing the webpages themselves.

CSS??  Needs to be more easily accessable...I don't know, perhaps a 3D ortho view of the layer stacking so you could get to your content that is buried??

- Mark</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Okay, so I am trying to redesign our webpage to make it more easy to navigate (with more front end links) so I found a <acronym title="Cascading Style Sheets">CSS</acronym> template that looked like it fit the bill.  So I start to modify it&#8230;wait a minute&#8230;nothing logical is working.  I change the page&#8217;s link colors and they show up still the wrong color online, so I go to the <acronym title="Cascading Style Sheets">CSS</acronym> file&#8230;change it there&#8230;.still they show up the wrong color???  WHAT???  Who is controlling this page, the <acronym title="Cascading Style Sheets">CSS</acronym> file or the page itself, and if they cannot agree&#8230;THEN what happens?  I also cannot get the flash gallery to center and scale in the &#8216;content area&#8217;.  Instead it pushes around the menus and lowers them.  WHAT the heck?  I am spending more time digging through the 500 line <acronym title="Cascading Style Sheets">CSS</acronym> file trying to find the correct mark-up than actually doing the webpages themselves.</p>
<p><acronym title="Cascading Style Sheets">CSS</acronym>??  Needs to be more easily accessable&#8230;I don&#8217;t know, perhaps a 3D ortho view of the layer stacking so you could get to your content that is buried??</p>
<p>- Mark</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Kurt</title>
		<link>http://robert.accettura.com/blog/2004/08/29/why-does-css-have-to-suck/#comment-191169</link>
		<dc:creator>Kurt</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 20 Sep 2007 15:24:14 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://robert.accettura.com/archives/2004/08/29/why-does-css-have-to-suck/#comment-191169</guid>
		<description>It is 2007 and CSS still sucks.  Table layout was so much easier...</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>It is 2007 and <acronym title="Cascading Style Sheets">CSS</acronym> still sucks.  Table layout was so much easier&#8230;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: LinkTiger</title>
		<link>http://robert.accettura.com/blog/2004/08/29/why-does-css-have-to-suck/#comment-1043</link>
		<dc:creator>LinkTiger</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 31 Dec 1969 18:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://robert.accettura.com/archives/2004/08/29/why-does-css-have-to-suck/#comment-1043</guid>
		<description>Until I read this, I thought I was the only one who thought that!  Granted, I love how the names in CSS actually make since.  instead of "bgcolor", its "background-color" or even just "background". Still, most of CSS2 just doesn't work for real-life non-blog websites.  Let's just hope CSS3 turns out to be just as good as we're told it will be.
</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Until I read this, I thought I was the only one who thought that!  Granted, I love how the names in <acronym title="Cascading Style Sheets">CSS</acronym> actually make since.  instead of &#8220;bgcolor&#8221;, its &#8220;background-color&#8221; or even just &#8220;background&#8221;. Still, most of CSS2 just doesn&#8217;t work for real-life non-blog websites.  Let&#8217;s just hope CSS3 turns out to be just as good as we&#8217;re told it will be.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
