Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

selowitch · Jun 22, 2005, 10:02 AM

I'm dying for CSS3 to be implemented/supported by the mainstream browsers for Windows/MacOS/Linux. What is known about the ratification of CSS3? I wonder who will be first to include support for it.

I notice, for example, that the latest release of Opera is still only supporting CSS2. Come on, people!

Millennium · 03:18 PM

It's important to keep in mind that unlike CSS1 and CSS2, there is no one "CSS3" standard. It is a collection of modules created by the W3C which collectively cover everything from CSS1 and CSS2, plus more creamy styling goodness.

None of these modules have been finalized yet, though some are close. The most useful of the bunch, the Selectors module (which lets you define different ways of deciding what to apply rules to), is a Candidate Recommendation right now. Most browsers have support for at least some of this module. Furthest behind is IE/Windows (which supports none of those which are new in CSS3), while furthest ahead is -surprisingly- MSN/Mac (but not MSN/Windows). The Colors module is also pretty close; many browsers support this to varying degrees, but even IE/Win supports the expanded list of color keywords.

In any case, however, there are two big obstacles to supporting CSS3:

None of the modules are finalized yet, so everything that gets implemented risks having the standard change out from under it.
No one, not even Opera, gets all of CSS2 right yet. I want nifty new selectors as much as anyone else, but shouldn't the basics come first?

justinkim · Jun 22, 2005, 11:31 AM

Also, CSS3 won't matter a whit until IE/Windows supports it well and whichever version does gets widely installed.

Millennium is 100% correct that CSS2 compliance across browsers is not all it should be. Heck, I'd be happy if different browsers would just interpret styles consistently, even if it isn't 100% to spec.

Phil Sherry · Jun 22, 2005, 01:37 PM

I heard the latest version of Camino parties with CSS3, but I haven't had time to check that out for myself, yet.

In any case, why bother? You're going to be targeting about 0.00001% of the browsing public. (I made that statistic up, and I'm probably way too generous with it.)

selowitch · Jun 22, 2005, 03:56 PM

Originally Posted by Phil Sherry

I heard the latest version of Camino parties with CSS3, but I haven't had time to check that out for myself, yet.

No kidding? I don't see that in the release notes.

Originally Posted by Phil Sherry

In any case, why bother? You're going to be targeting about 0.00001% of the browsing public. (I made that statistic up, and I'm probably way too generous with it.)

Well, at the moment, that's true. But I believe that CSS3 will ultimately be widely adopted. Actuallly, my desire for CSS3 stems in part from my frustration over lousy typography and Unicode support in the browsers right now, and I'm hoping for a major improvement with the advent of CSS 3.

selowitch · Jun 22, 2005, 04:00 PM

Originally Posted by Millennium

Furthest behind is IE/Windows (which supports none of those which are new in CSS3), while furthest ahead is -surprisingly- MSN/Mac (but not MSN/Windows).

Erm, since when is MSN/Mac a web browser? I've never heard of it except as a search engine or perhaps an IM client. Am missing something or am I just a hopeless ignoramus?

Millennium · Jun 22, 2005, 04:29 PM

Originally Posted by selowitch

Erm, since when is MSN/Mac a web browser? I've never heard of it except as a search engine or perhaps an IM client. Am missing something or am I just a hopeless ignoramus?

Don't worry; you're not an ignoramus. MSN/Mac was one of the best-kept secrets of the platform. Not long after IE/Mac was discontinued, MSN started formally supporting the Mac with its own client software. It used a souped-up version of the Tasman browser engine which powered IE/Mac. Unfortunately, very few people know about it, because of three things:

Microsoft never marketed MSN/Mac very heavily.
You had to pay for a subscription to MSN up-front before you could actually use the browser.
Microsoft dropped support for MSN/Mac several months ago.

End result: nobody ever tested with it, and so the word never really got around.

It's really a shame that MSN/Mac never took off. I don't know if it could pass Acid2, but its standards support was light-years ahead of anything at the time, and it still beats the pants off of the current crop of browsers in some important areas.

selowitch · Jun 25, 2005, 11:13 PM

The main reason I'm so eager to use CSS3 is I'd like to finally have a wider range of choices for fonts on my websites, and maybe have the chance at those fonts looking somewhat alike across platforms and browsers (I know, I shouldn't hold my breath). I also hate the fact that Unicode is so poorly supported. Anybody ever try to use real, typographical correct fractions by referencing their Unicode numbers? It's not a pretty sight.

Millennium · Jun 26, 2005, 09:46 AM

Originally Posted by selowitch

The main reason I'm so eager to use CSS3 is I'd like to finally have a wider range of choices for fonts on my websites, and maybe have the chance at those fonts looking somewhat alike across platforms and browsers (I know, I shouldn't hold my breath). I also hate the fact that Unicode is so poorly supported. Anybody ever try to use real, typographical correct fractions by referencing their Unicode numbers? It's not a pretty sight.

Ah; so what you're actually looking for is embedded fonts. This technology appeared around the time of the version 4 browsers, but there were two competing standards for them, and both had significant problems with patents and the like. As a result, they never caught on, because no one but The Big Two (Netscape and IE at the time) ever implemented them, the market shares of Netscape and IE were nearly equal at the time, and supporting both standards at once was too troublesome.

As for the CSS3 version of the technology, I doubt we'll see it implemented as such in the foreseeable future; it's too complex and it still has annoying intellectual-property issues which will keep most developers from being able to implement it. I see the big hope of Web fonts being the SVG font specification, which lacks the IP issues and is already being implemented as part of the SVG standard itself, so it shouldn't be too big of a leap for Web developers to work with them in HTML as well. SVG fonts aren't perfect, of course -the file size is large, and the fonts can't be hinted- but they should get the job done for most pages.

As for Unicode, make sure that you mention the encoding of your pages in your HTML's meta tags (and preferably the HTTP headers too, if you can configure your server to do so). Some of the problems you see come from browsers with bad defaults and poor encoding detection, so setting it explicitly can be a major help.

selowitch · 10:18 AM

Originally Posted by Millennium

Ah; so what you're actually looking for is embedded fonts.

Yup, I remember. A good idea that was stupidly killed by the short-sighted browser wars.

Originally Posted by Millennium

As for the CSS3 version of the technology, I doubt we'll see it implemented as such in the foreseeable future; it's too complex and it still has annoying intellectual-property issues which will keep most developers from being able to implement it.

Bummer.

Originally Posted by Millennium

I see the big hope of Web fonts being the SVG font specification

Isn't a plug-in required for that, and aren't most users too ignorant or unmotivated to install plug-ins that aren't included by default?

Originally Posted by Millennium

As for Unicode, make sure that you mention the encoding of your pages in your HTML's meta tags (and preferably the HTTP headers too, if you can configure your server to do so). Some of the problems you see come from browsers with bad defaults and poor encoding detection, so setting it explicitly can be a major help.

OK, well, consider the following code (you need to remove the spaces before some of the Unicode references; MacNN insists on displaying them as entities rather than code if I close up the spaces):

Code:
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN" "http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/loose.dtd">
<html lang="en">
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Style-Type" content="text/css">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Language" content="en">
<table>
<tr valign="top"><td>&#x00bc;</td></tr>
<tr valign="top"><td>&#x00bd;</td></tr>
<tr valign="top"><td>&#x00be;</td></tr>
<tr valign="top"><td>&# 8531;</td></tr>
<tr valign="top"><td>&# 8532;</td></tr>
<tr valign="top"><td>&# 8533;</td></tr>
<tr valign="top"><td>&# 8534;</td></tr>
<tr valign="top"><td>&# 8535;</td></tr>
<tr valign="top"><td>&# 8536;</td></tr>
<tr valign="top"><td>&# 8537;</td></tr>
<tr valign="top"><td>&# 8538;</td></tr>
<tr valign="top"><td>&# 8539;</td></tr>
<tr valign="top"><td>&# 8540;</td></tr>
<tr valign="top"><td>&# 8541;</td></tr>
</table>
</body>
</html>

As you can see, despite explicitly declaring a character encoding, the fractions do not appear in the same typeface (blow them up to see) as each other and will not appear in the correct typeface if called for in a style sheet. What's up with that? Stupid, huh?? It drives me insane. Are typographically correct and consistent fractions really too much to ask for???

If you could tell me that reconfiguring my server to explicitly declare UTF-8 encoding would actually help how these gosh-darned fractions would display in the browsers I would fall to the ground and kiss your feet. Metaphorically, that is.

skalie · Jun 26, 2005, 10:06 AM

If only browsers self-destructed after a few years, or in some cases, months.

selowitch · Jun 26, 2005, 10:08 AM

Originally Posted by skalie

If only browsers self-destructed after a few years, or in some cases, months.

Except Safari, Camino, and Firefox (the latter for those dumb enough to use Windows), I would agree.

:dragonflypro: · Jun 27, 2005, 11:38 AM

CSS3?

heh, I am still waiting for the browser world to get solid CSS2 support.
(and the more I get into CSS the more it seems like the cart-horse problem is only getting worse)

Having a browser with 85% share but the worst standards compliance is a web devs 'over a pint' bitch session incarnate.

T

selowitch · 12:15 PM

Originally Posted by :dragonflypro:

CSS3? heh, I am still waiting for the browser world to get solid CSS2 support.

No disagreement here. But since, for example, Unicode is so badly supported even under CSS 2.x, my hope is I can get where I need to be via CSS3. I'm so frustrated by the fractions thing!

osxisfun · Jun 27, 2005, 02:27 PM

Originally Posted by :dragonflypro:

CSS3?

heh, I am still waiting for the browser world to get solid CSS2 support.
(and the more I get into CSS the more it seems like the cart-horse problem is only getting worse)

Having a browser with 85% share but the worst standards compliance is a web devs 'over a pint' bitch session incarnate.

T

selowitch · 05:34 PM

Originally Posted by Millennium

As for Unicode, make sure that you mention the encoding of your pages in your HTML's meta tags (and preferably the HTTP headers too, if you can configure your server to do so). Some of the problems you see come from browsers with bad defaults and poor encoding detection, so setting it explicitly can be a major help.

If anyone can tell me how to edit the HTTP headers for my websites by logging into the command line via SSH, or point me to a tutorial, you will have my undying gratitude.

Could I possibly achieve this by adding this code?

Code:
<?php
header('Content-type: text/html; charset=utf-8');
?>

I get error messages saying the headers are already set. How do I overcome that?