From rssfeeds@jmason.org  Fri Oct  4 11:01:52 2002
Return-Path: <rssfeeds@spamassassin.taint.org>
Delivered-To: yyyy@localhost.spamassassin.taint.org
Received: from localhost (jalapeno [127.0.0.1])
	by jmason.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1773516F1A
	for <jm@localhost>; Fri,  4 Oct 2002 11:01:25 +0100 (IST)
Received: from jalapeno [127.0.0.1]
	by localhost with IMAP (fetchmail-5.9.0)
	for jm@localhost (single-drop); Fri, 04 Oct 2002 11:01:25 +0100 (IST)
Received: from dogma.slashnull.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by
    dogma.slashnull.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g94805K08772 for
    <jm@jmason.org>; Fri, 4 Oct 2002 09:00:05 +0100
Message-Id: <200210040800.g94805K08772@dogma.slashnull.org>
To: yyyy@spamassassin.taint.org
From: diveintomark <rssfeeds@spamassassin.taint.org>
Subject: CSS and mobile devices
Date: Fri, 04 Oct 2002 08:00:05 -0000
Content-Type: text/plain; encoding=utf-8

URL: http://diveintomark.org/archives/2002/10/03.html#css_and_mobile_devices
Date: 2002-10-03T14:52:57-05:00

So, d'ya remember that whole CSS debate that flared up about six months ago? 
(Actually, it flares up continuously in various circles. In fact, I think it's 
about time for it to flare up again in weblogging circles. These things are 
inexorably cyclical. CSS-vs-tables is the hemorrhoid of the web design world. 
But I digress.) 

If you were around back then, you will no doubt recall that I was in the 
pro-CSS camp[1]. 

So anyway, d'ya remember that argument that went something like &#8220;you 
should design with web standards and CSS because it will future-proof your site 
for the pie-in-the-sky future when people surf the web on mobile 
devices&#8221;? Well, it's crap[2]. 

There are lots of good arguments for designing with web standards and CSS: 
automatically print-friendly pages[3], dynamic style switchers[4], reduced 
bandwidth[5], and aiding and abetting accessibility[6] (a topic which I claim 
to know a lot about[7]), among others. But &#8220;because it'll future-proof 
your site for the next generation of mobile devices&#8221; is not one of them. 
The theory is solid, but apparently nobody told the makers of the mobile 
devices (now that we have them) how it was all supposed to work in practice. 
Oops.



[1] http://diveintomark.org/archives/rooms/css/
[2] http://www.dashes.com/anil/index.php?archives/003378.php
[3] http://diveintomark.org/archives/2002/02/01.html#print_me
[4] http://diveintomark.org/archives/2002/02/13.html#css_fun_and_games
[5] http://diveintomark.org/archives/2002/02/14.html#moral_arguments_aside
[6] http://diveintomark.org/archives/2002/02/15.html#css_and_universal_design
[7] http://diveintoaccessibility.org/


