Coffeehouse Thread

17 posts

Forum Read Only

This forum has been made read only by the site admins. No new threads or comments can be added.

IE css rounded corner question

Back to Forum: Coffeehouse
  • User profile image
    jamie

    I cant post a link but was "told" that IE does not support rounded css corners ( i want to say tables - but they are spans/divs/containers..whatever..

    is this true? i saw the test site code works in FF (has css rounded corners) but in IE they are square

    It would be great to say - "yes IE does have rounded corners in css"  ...but i dont know the code..

    anyone?    possible?    no?

  • User profile image
    DMassy

    jamie wrote:
    I cant post a link but was "told" that IE does not support rounded css corners ( i want to say tables - but they are spans/divs/containers..whatever..

    is this true? i saw the test site code works in FF (has css rounded corners) but in IE they are square

    It would be great to say - "yes IE does have rounded corners in css"  ...but i dont know the code..

    anyone?    possible?    no?


    No IE does not. FF supports a mozilla namespaced version of this CSS3 feature. See http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/library/Bb250413.aspx for an article on how to do rounded corners with IE today.

    Thanks
    -Dave

  • User profile image
    jamie

    wow - hey dave! Smiley

    ya.. i already submitted the design with images for the corners - but they didnt "dojo" or something

    *hope youre doing well

  • User profile image
    MB

    Yeah, the rounded corner css stuff is CSS3, so it's likely to be some time before you'll see that in IE (like next decade ??)

    I find it curious that that all these -moz and -webkit  styles are now considered to be "legitimate" while existing IE extensions like "scrollbar-" or various filters, are still considered to be evil.

  • User profile image
    jamie

    ...ive been going on about adopting css3 forever...  like in the old days Tongue Out

    ms was first with all the css...  xml... - ahead of the standards bullcrap commitees -

    i wish theyd just go out and BREAK the internet - support all the new stuff before anyone else
    (*although that wouldnt break anything but would support new stuff)

    oh ya - and release a new frontpage/spawn that is ALL css based - with drawing css tables and inline ie preview tab back 

    [6]

  • User profile image
    W3bbo

    MB wrote:
    Yeah, the rounded corner css stuff is CSS3, so it's likely to be some time before you'll see that in IE (like next decade ??)


    Give 'em 5 years. I've got slightly more faith in them than 2 years ago, but it's fading fast.

    MB wrote:
    I find it curious that that all these -moz and -webkit  styles are now considered to be "legitimate" while existing IE extensions like "scrollbar-" or various filters, are still considered to be evil.


    Those -moz and -webkit prepended properties affect the style content of the page, that's all well and good. They're all properly prefixed with the MFG's signature in accordance with CSS2.1's recommendation on MFG-specific properties.

    The scrollbar- property is evil twofold:
    • It affects the user-interface chrome; something I (and many others) should not be allowed to be touched by websites. This includes preventing scripts from having access to the statusbar or hiding menus. The only exception is setting scrolling behaviour with the overflow:; property.
    • It isn't prepended with "-msie", but this is forgiveable considering it was created before CSS2.1 was thought of.
    The latter applies to other IE-only properties like filter:; and the behaviour:; property value, which is actually quite useful.

  • User profile image
    W3bbo

    jamie wrote:
    ...ive been going on about adopting css3 forever...  like in the old days


    CSS3 is even more complicated than CSS2 and requires a full and proper understanding of the cyclic graph nature of XML, the box model, how boxes interact, and document semantics. Things you've demonstrated you're incapable of doing at the present point in time.

    jamie wrote:
    ms was first with all the css...  xml... - ahead of the standards bullcrap commitees -


    No it wasn't. These specifications were created by these "standards bullcrap commitees" and then Microsoft implemented them.

    jamie wrote:
    i wish theyd just go out and BREAK the internet - support all the new stuff before anyone else
    (*although that wouldnt break anything but would support new stuff)


    I know you're not trolling, but that's just stupid.

    jamie wrote:
    oh ya - and release a new frontpage/spawn that is ALL css based - with drawing css tables and inline ie preview tab back


    FrontPage (and VS) use a modified version of Trident to render documents, or so I understand.

    But as Sven pointed out earlier, you cannot "design" CSS. You have to write it out manually because no automated tool can do it for you. The tool wouldn't understand the meaning of the document. Only you can.

  • User profile image
    Sven Groot

    W3bbo wrote:
    But as Sven pointed out earlier, you cannot "design" CSS. You have to write it out manually because no automated tool can do it for you. The tool wouldn't understand the meaning of the document. Only you can.

    That's not exactly what I said. I said CSS does not lend itself to WYSIWYG tools like Frontpage. That doesn't make it impossible to make tools to work with CSS instead of writing it manually, but they'd have to follow a different paradigm than Frontpage to be meaningful.

    A tool such as Jamie describes (Frontpage like but using CSS) wouldn't be any better than using tables and font tags. Yes, you'd be using CSS, but not the way it's meant to be used. There'd be no semantics, no meaning.

    What is required perhaps is an editor that is closer to something like LyX rather than Word. LyX is the only editor I know of that truly works with document structure and semantics. LyX itself isn't easy enough to use though, we need something better.

    In the end, what it comes down to is this: Jamie's approach to the web doesn't map to CSS. No future versions of CSS is going to change that.

  • User profile image
    MB

    W3bbo wrote:
    
    MB wrote:
    I find it curious that that all these -moz and -webkit  styles are now considered to be "legitimate" while existing IE extensions like "scrollbar-" or various filters, are still considered to be evil.


    Those -moz and -webkit prepended properties affect the style content of the page, that's all well and good. They're all properly prefixed with the MFG's signature in accordance with CSS2.1's recommendation on MFG-specific properties.

    The scrollbar- property is evil twofold:
    • It affects the user-interface chrome; something I (and many others) should not be allowed to be touched by websites. This includes preventing scripts from having access to the statusbar or hiding menus. The only exception is setting scrolling behaviour with the overflow:; property.
    • It isn't prepended with "-msie", but this is forgiveable considering it was created before CSS2.1 was thought of.
    The latter applies to other IE-only properties like filter:; and the behaviour:; property value, which is actually quite useful.


    That's not exactly what I meant.

    I was really referring to the fact that we seem to be drifting back towards "browser-wars" mentality... where we'll have a myriad of vendor-specific properties (albeit with the W3C approved method of identifiing them) to allow each to get a jump ahead of the standards, and the developer forced to make decisions on how they manage their use (if at all).

    Admitedly, this is not quite the same disaster we had during the Netscape-IE battle, but it's getting ugly and messy nonetheless. I just wonder if a bunch of -msie properties would find the same level of acceptance as the -moz, -webkit  and -khtml  do.

  • User profile image
    W3bbo

    MB wrote:
    Admitedly, this is not quite the same disaster we had during the Netscape-IE battle, but it's getting ugly and messy nonetheless. I just wonder if a bunch of -msie properties would find the same level of acceptance as the -moz, -webkit  and -khtml  do.


    It's because none of the IE properties, as they are, are particularly apealling.

    None of the IE properties have been used much (if ever) by the "hip" crowd, the trendsetters for CSS. People like Dave Shea, Andy Budd, Keith Robinson, and Eric Meyer. If you want to see more IE property usage, drop them an email and make an argument for them writing about them.

  • User profile image
    MB

    W3bbo wrote:
    
    MB wrote:
    Admitedly, this is not quite the same disaster we had during the Netscape-IE battle, but it's getting ugly and messy nonetheless. I just wonder if a bunch of -msie properties would find the same level of acceptance as the -moz, -webkit  and -khtml  do.


    It's because none of the IE properties, as they are, are particularly apealling.

    None of the IE properties have been used much (if ever) by the "hip" crowd, the trendsetters for CSS. People like Dave Shea, Andy Budd, Keith Robinson, and Eric Meyer. If you want to see more IE property usage, drop them an email and make an argument for them writing about them.

    Gosh you are difficult.

    I didn't say I wanted more IE proprietary properties or that I was particularly a fan-boy of the existing MS extensions.

    I quite simply said that I was bemused that we are moving back towards an era of a whole bunch of proprietary properties from multiple vendors, and the management issue that creates for the developer, and wondered if the same benign acceptance would be afforded to MS if they were to do the same thing... hence my thought of MS perhaps being more likely to wait for the standard... and the way it's going, that aint going to happen much this side of 2010.

    The pro-IE or anti-OSS slant you seem to have assigned to me, is all your creation. Please don’t do that.

  • User profile image
    W3bbo

    I'd just like to apologise to Jamie or MB if there was some misunderstanding (or in my case, being a W3C názi). I recognise the W3C specs position the consortium as an Ivory Tower, in reality not that many of the specifications have been implemented as they're intended.

    Consider XML/CSS. CSS supports different media types and appropriate rendering. But how many UAs actually do this properly? With the advent of the iPhone (and PIE's inappropriate handling) the "mobile" and "handheld" medias are useless, people want the desktop experience everywhere, even though it's often detrimental or inappropriate. Note how Safari on the iPhone doesn't relayout the page.

    Because developers aren't creating mobile stylesheets, Opera needed to invest SSR to relayout pages for them.

    There needs to be reform. CSS is better than sliced bread, but only if you fully understand how it works. For most people who want a simple website that's asking too much.

  • User profile image
    AndyC

    W3bbo wrote:
    people want the desktop experience everywhere,


    And that is the crux of the matter. CSS solves a problem that people didn't want solving. It tries too hard to be too clever and as a result is over complicated and difficult to implement correctly.

  • User profile image
    W3bbo

    AndyC wrote:
    It tries too hard to be too clever and as a result is over complicated and difficult to implement correctly.


    I'd argue that it doesn't make things more complicated or hinders implementation. It just means extra work for the designer who has to do a second or third stylesheet.

    But there are cases where it's used appropriately, and if the original designer isn't going to make their own handheld or TV stylesheet, the UA author can use their own. Opera pulls this off nicely.

  • User profile image
    figuerres

    Ok this is interesting and I guess I will add my 2 cents here.

    what I would like to have (and I bet a *LOT* of others would like also) is this:

    ONE standard set of markup and style and client script that "just works"

    an editing system that uses that standard and allows me to use Ws***Wig (sorry cant think of the right leters atm) tools to layout the page and application visuals.

    frankly I do not really care if it's tables, divs or Gibber-Whats or some other term for the kind of tags etc....

    I write a lot of software for businesses.  they just want it to work and do it fast. they also want it to look good and work in other browsers if possible but if not then IE is fine by them.

    I would love to be able to say "it works on any standard browser"

    I would love to not have to worry that when an "art designer" sort is hired to make a nice looking page that I'll then have to spend days ripping apart how he did his page and make it work with my coding to make the data active etc...

    I am alomost tempted to suggest that there be two different internet standards:

    HTTP  -- go do symantic web whatsits ---

    APP  -- a business applications standard that supports writing apps over the net.

    the "APP" could follow a different standards track that would focus on doing busines focused systems.

    fork HTTP and HTML and CSS  so to speak.

    but really that would bring up a whole new set of problems....

    I love working with HTML and CSS

    I hate the feeling that I have to fight for hours to get the look and markup to work right.

    I'd like the exp. to be more like say Word or a Desktop publishing program.

    so far as losing the "meaning" or the "symantics" well .... I am not sure that really matters most of the time... and if it does then there should be a way to make that work that allows a GUI tool to manage that aspect.

  • User profile image
    MB

    W3bbo wrote:
    I'd just like to...


    Not a problem.

    W3bbo wrote:
    
    There needs to be reform. CSS is better than sliced bread, but only if you fully understand how it works. For most people who want a simple website that's asking too much.


    I suspect that most web devs actually have a better grasp of the concept than you may be crediting them with.

    However, customers generally don't care about these details, and just know what they want their site to look like: "I want a website that looks like this" (draws a picture of the exact layout and presentation they want) "and I have no desire for anything other than traditional internet 'www' type of access".

    Your immediate problem is not how to separate document semantics from style, or how to impose your own vision of their future, but is simply how to sell them exactly what asked for, for the best price, as most customers look upon a site as a promotion that they buy, use for a while, and then replace.

    Hence there is a tendency for devs to simply use CSS as a means to an end -- i.e. adding style to the document as you write it so that it looks the way you want -- in other words, the MS-Word/Frontpage/Dreamweaver WYSIWYG type of approach.

    My own issues with CSS are not with the concepts or the goals, which are obviously the right way to go, but with the patchy, quirky and non-standard implementations across the various browsers and platforms, which means that I often can't achieve what I need to, without resorting to really ugly kludges to "fix" problems.

    It's nice that Opera has good CSS or that FireFox is implementing some pre-standards CSS3 extensions,  but when 80% of your customers are using IE and it won't play nice with those features (or even many 2.1 features) you tend to get very frustrated with the "pure CSS" sermons and just do what you need to do, in order to get the job done and make it work & look the same on all platforms... and if that requires <FONT> <TABLE> or whatever... then so be it.

    I actually have a personal project using a CMS I wrote (and which I continue to work on) that attempts to implement CSS as a style context for the content, so that I can redesign the site just from the style-sheets (or even implement other media support such as WAP etc) but it's a bloody nightmare to make everything work and provide X-Platform/X-Browser support, and would not be something that your average customer would be prepared to pay for.

  • User profile image
    n4cer

    Sven Groot wrote:
    
    W3bbo wrote:
    But as Sven pointed out earlier, you cannot "design" CSS. You have to write it out manually because no automated tool can do it for you. The tool wouldn't understand the meaning of the document. Only you can.

    That's not exactly what I said. I said CSS does not lend itself to WYSIWYG tools like Frontpage. That doesn't make it impossible to make tools to work with CSS instead of writing it manually, but they'd have to follow a different paradigm than Frontpage to be meaningful.

    A tool such as Jamie describes (Frontpage like but using CSS) wouldn't be any better than using tables and font tags. Yes, you'd be using CSS, but not the way it's meant to be used. There'd be no semantics, no meaning.

    What is required perhaps is an editor that is closer to something like LyX rather than Word. LyX is the only editor I know of that truly works with document structure and semantics. LyX itself isn't easy enough to use though, we need something better.

    In the end, what it comes down to is this: Jamie's approach to the web doesn't map to CSS. No future versions of CSS is going to change that.


    It may be worth looking into manual mode in Expression Web and VS 2008 (Double-click "Auto" in the status bar of EW to bring up its style application toolbar and set to manual mode).
    http://blogs.msdn.com/webdevtools/archive/2007/06/15/style-application-tool-bar.aspx

    Demo from Mix (start at about 12:12)
    http://sessions.visitmix.com/default.asp?event=1011&session=2011&pid=DES03&disc=&id=1505&year=2007&search=DES03

Conversation locked

This conversation has been locked by the site admins. No new comments can be made.