|
|
|
|
|
|
by lisper
6338 days ago
|
|
|
But that in and of itself doesn't mean anything. The content is static. That makes it much easier to prettify. Look for example at the Orchid example that I linked to: http://www.csszengarden.com/?cssfile=/211/211.css&page=0 Look at the headings. They're really beautiful. How do I do that in CSS? I can't. They are images. To really demonstrate CSS you'd need to take all those style sheets and apply them to a different HTML document and see if they still looked good. No one has done that experiment (and I suspect no one will) but I predict the results would not look nearly as good. |
|
|
But really, the whole point is that they _are_ doing that in CSS. The images are defined in CSS; no "img" tags here. Browsers (and bots) that don't have that CSS support gracefully degrade to indexable text.
The headings are also nothing special. Just the "Zapfino" font pre-rendered. You could use CSS today and get it to work on every computer that has that font installed (every Mac and iPhone, to name a few), or if the browser has more experimental CSS support, you can render any custom font (with an open license) by specifying a path to the font online. But alas, most browsers do not support this, and we developers use sIFR instead.
> To really demonstrate CSS you'd need to take all those style sheets and apply them to a different HTML document and see if they still looked good. No one has done that experiment (and I suspect no one will) but I predict the results would not look nearly as good.
That's not the point of CSS.