Comments on: Spiffy Markup? http://www.webstandards.org/2006/04/05/am-i-spiffy-or-not/ Working together for standards Wed, 27 Mar 2013 12:19:03 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: stk http://www.webstandards.org/2006/04/05/am-i-spiffy-or-not/comment-page-1/#comment-56891 stk Sun, 18 Mar 2007 05:50:47 +0000 http://www.webstandards.org/2006/04/05/am-i-spiffy-or-not/#comment-56891 Nope, the code is not very spiffy, but it does work as advertised and thanks to social bookmarking, has achieved a certain degree of notoriety. I typically weigh the XHTML/CSS footprint and semantics against the benefit or wow-factor of a spiffy technique. For me, the footprint is too large, the code isn't elegant and the semantics are horrid. For me, the ends do not justify the means. For others, the ends are all that matter. To each his own, I guess and hats off to the author for "finding a way". However, until I can find a nicer way, all my corners will be square (at least, for liquid designs). I do hope that the W3C utilizes the feedback - an easy, semantically-correct, light-weight method of rounding corners for block-level elements will be well received! :D (And the funny part? When I first looked at both Spiffy and Nifty, I was sure they would fail validation. Color me converted, but I thought the <b> tag was long gone.) :p Nope, the code is not very spiffy, but it does work as advertised and thanks to social bookmarking, has achieved a certain degree of notoriety.

I typically weigh the XHTML/CSS footprint and semantics against the benefit or wow-factor of a spiffy technique. For me, the footprint is too large, the code isn’t elegant and the semantics are horrid. For me, the ends do not justify the means.

For others, the ends are all that matter. To each his own, I guess and hats off to the author for “finding a way”.

However, until I can find a nicer way, all my corners will be square (at least, for liquid designs).

I do hope that the W3C utilizes the feedback – an easy, semantically-correct, light-weight method of rounding corners for block-level elements will be well received! :D

(And the funny part? When I first looked at both Spiffy and Nifty, I was sure they would fail validation. Color me converted, but I thought the <b> tag was long gone.) :p

]]> By: Chip Peterson http://www.webstandards.org/2006/04/05/am-i-spiffy-or-not/comment-page-1/#comment-54528 Chip Peterson Fri, 09 Mar 2007 22:17:45 +0000 http://www.webstandards.org/2006/04/05/am-i-spiffy-or-not/#comment-54528 So, in the end, what is the best way to create rounded corners without using images and still be W3C compliant? I have friends that know html are are asking me all the time I want rounded corners because they look so nice. They don't know much about Photoshop and graphics and they want to adjust everything by themself. This seems so complicated I better create the images for them than try to explain what is in here. So, in the end, what is the best way to create rounded corners without using images and still be W3C compliant? I have friends that know html are are asking me all the time I want rounded corners because they look so nice. They don’t know much about Photoshop and graphics and they want to adjust everything by themself.
This seems so complicated I better create the images for them than try to explain what is in here.

]]> By: Greg http://www.webstandards.org/2006/04/05/am-i-spiffy-or-not/comment-page-1/#comment-5276 Greg Mon, 18 Sep 2006 07:44:28 +0000 http://www.webstandards.org/2006/04/05/am-i-spiffy-or-not/#comment-5276 I'm a little late to the party, but I thought I would chime in: There is a lot of ignorant nonsense in this thread about how this is a ripoff of Nifty Corners and such, but if you actually read the page at spiffycorners.com you'll see exactly what and why. I didn't create the technique, and I don't pretend to. As for the donate link, It's for the extreme amount of bandwidth the site uses - and it was suggested by people visiting the site, not myself. I think it's a little silly that it has caused so much controversy though. To say I wish I never created it would only be half truth. I mean, it's uses on youTube (view the source of any page on youTube and scroll down just a short ways) and that's kind of cool. But it's got everyone in such a hissy. I’m a little late to the party, but I thought I would chime in:

There is a lot of ignorant nonsense in this thread about how this is a ripoff of Nifty Corners and such, but if you actually read the page at spiffycorners.com you’ll see exactly what and why.

I didn’t create the technique, and I don’t pretend to. As for the donate link, It’s for the extreme amount of bandwidth the site uses – and it was suggested by people visiting the site, not myself.

I think it’s a little silly that it has caused so much controversy though. To say I wish I never created it would only be half truth. I mean, it’s uses on youTube (view the source of any page on youTube and scroll down just a short ways) and that’s kind of cool. But it’s got everyone in such a hissy.

]]> By: Scott Tankard http://www.webstandards.org/2006/04/05/am-i-spiffy-or-not/comment-page-1/#comment-3004 Scott Tankard Sat, 05 Aug 2006 20:53:46 +0000 http://www.webstandards.org/2006/04/05/am-i-spiffy-or-not/#comment-3004 I agree the markup is nasty, however I feel it's still a step up from tables (I mean... at least it fits in thirty lines). I hope the border-radius and gradient <acronym title="Cascading Style Sheets">CSS</acronym> stuff Mozilla has prototyped is accepted into the <acronym title="World Wide Web Consortium">W3C</acronym> specs -- soon! I agree the markup is nasty, however I feel it’s still a step up from tables (I mean… at least it fits in thirty lines).

I hope the border-radius and gradient CSS stuff Mozilla has prototyped is accepted into the W3C specs — soon!

]]> By: Frank http://www.webstandards.org/2006/04/05/am-i-spiffy-or-not/comment-page-1/#comment-1876 Frank Tue, 27 Jun 2006 23:54:20 +0000 http://www.webstandards.org/2006/04/05/am-i-spiffy-or-not/#comment-1876 I don't give a shit about semantics or what have you. what it does is create a simple way to put content inside of a rounded box on a page...cool, thats just what i want. visitors to my website are not going to care how. I don’t give a shit about semantics or what have you. what it does is create a simple way to put content inside of a rounded box on a page…cool, thats just what i want. visitors to my website are not going to care how.

]]> By: Helen, design manager http://www.webstandards.org/2006/04/05/am-i-spiffy-or-not/comment-page-1/#comment-987 Helen, design manager Thu, 18 May 2006 11:47:13 +0000 http://www.webstandards.org/2006/04/05/am-i-spiffy-or-not/#comment-987 I think that amount of html codes will make the maintenance a nightmare! Better use some images. I think that amount of html codes will make the maintenance a nightmare! Better use some images.

]]> By: Web Design and Development » Blog Archive » Spiffy Corners http://www.webstandards.org/2006/04/05/am-i-spiffy-or-not/comment-page-1/#comment-775 Web Design and Development » Blog Archive » Spiffy Corners Wed, 10 May 2006 19:33:49 +0000 http://www.webstandards.org/2006/04/05/am-i-spiffy-or-not/#comment-775 [...] I found it on WaSP, as Ian Lloyd was lamenting its redundancy and non-standards markup. [...] [...] I found it on WaSP, as Ian Lloyd was lamenting its redundancy and non-standards markup. [...]

]]> By: Max Design - standards based web design, development and training » Blog Archive » Some links for light reading (5/4/06) http://www.webstandards.org/2006/04/05/am-i-spiffy-or-not/comment-page-1/#comment-479 Max Design - standards based web design, development and training » Blog Archive » Some links for light reading (5/4/06) Sat, 29 Apr 2006 05:30:27 +0000 http://www.webstandards.org/2006/04/05/am-i-spiffy-or-not/#comment-479 [...] Spiffy markup? [...] [...] Spiffy markup? [...]

]]> By: hwright.net » Standards… are we getting off-topic? http://www.webstandards.org/2006/04/05/am-i-spiffy-or-not/comment-page-1/#comment-464 hwright.net » Standards… are we getting off-topic? Wed, 26 Apr 2006 23:02:24 +0000 http://www.webstandards.org/2006/04/05/am-i-spiffy-or-not/#comment-464 [...] Everyone says “the site needs to be developed using standards” but are some people forgetting what the point was? Separation of content and presentation. HTML - produce content. CSS - layout the content. So, in all the fuss over content and presentation, I guess some forgot about the other part of websites — Functionality. There is a reason there is a difference between a web designer and a web developer. The web developer adds functionality through any number of technologies available to them. So why is Javascript being lumped into the the design side? Just because it can access the DOM model and modify presentation doesn’t mean it’s a good idea. Webstandards.org had a post on Spiffy Corners a little while ago. The comments from that post discussed other hacks like Nifty Corners and semantics. I won’t rehash it all, but it’s worth a read if you are hazy on the topic. [...] [...] Everyone says “the site needs to be developed using standards” but are some people forgetting what the point was? Separation of content and presentation. HTML – produce content. CSS – layout the content. So, in all the fuss over content and presentation, I guess some forgot about the other part of websites — Functionality. There is a reason there is a difference between a web designer and a web developer. The web developer adds functionality through any number of technologies available to them. So why is Javascript being lumped into the the design side? Just because it can access the DOM model and modify presentation doesn’t mean it’s a good idea. Webstandards.org had a post on Spiffy Corners a little while ago. The comments from that post discussed other hacks like Nifty Corners and semantics. I won’t rehash it all, but it’s worth a read if you are hazy on the topic. [...]

]]> By: Tyler http://www.webstandards.org/2006/04/05/am-i-spiffy-or-not/comment-page-1/#comment-328 Tyler Wed, 12 Apr 2006 22:48:41 +0000 http://www.webstandards.org/2006/04/05/am-i-spiffy-or-not/#comment-328 I dont see a problem with inserting presentational elements via DOM. the only people who will recive the extra code are modern desktop browsers. I dont see a problem with inserting presentational elements via DOM. the only people who will recive the extra code are modern desktop browsers.

]]>