Actually, what CSS generally adds is faster downloads (CSS markup is generally smaller than HTML markup), and faster rendering (following CSS is generally cheaper than trying to calculate table widths). Most of my webpages dropped in size considerably when I went to the XHTML/CSS paradigm from the HTML4 tables-are-for-layout. That means you could download them faster (if you cared about my pages, I mean ;-}), and you could actually have the new pages displayed (rendered) usually before you could have had the old pages downloaded.
And, actually, CSS creates content-independant presentation that HTML largely lacks. When you use <b> tags, for example, you're saying, "present this content in bold format." But what if I'm visually impaired and using an audible browser? CSS allows the page designer to say "on the screen, make this bold, on a printer, make it italics, and when spoken, surround the text with these words." That, Ytrew, is content-independant presentation.
Other than that, I agree - Firefox can be considered quite large (get a friend who has hi-speed access to download TheOpenCD from http://theopencd.sunsite.dk/, burn it to disk, and then give it to you, assuming you have a CDROM in your $40 computer), and buying a computer to view web pages that are not important to you is crazy.
In reply to Re^5: Web forum markup language and the Monastery ([[...]])
by Tanktalus
in thread Web forum markup language and the Monastery
by szabgab
| For: | Use: | ||
| & | & | ||
| < | < | ||
| > | > | ||
| [ | [ | ||
| ] | ] |