Maybe not a plugin, but surely theres some zoomish things you can do with Jquery? I know you can do dragging, and zooming I've done before with CSS and Jquery. The thing I'd be worried about is that without flash, your gonna smack right into the issue that, without some super advanced ajaxy type stuff, it'll load the 100% zoomed version shrunk, and then expand as needed. So even if they don't zoom, it'll load the zoomed version. Does that make any sense? Haha, clear as mud right ;)
A bit of a rehash, but I'd like to see what this community thinks.
I'm pretty heavily involved in writing a CSS framework that will allow themes for Telligent (my full time job) to theme more quickly for their customer base.
It's got plugins, any order columns, and modules that can split into further grids and such, but keeping it light. No matter what though, because I have to account for anything, its got just boatloads more divs than I would ever write. I can't know that for the rounded corner plugin, I always have this element or that element to hook into for the rounded corners, etc etc. This is important to me, but the devs and money makers don't much care, as long as we're churning out more faster and its generally clean.
How do you guys feel? Bloated-ish markup and fast turn around times, or from scratch css and html each time thats ultra clean and semantic? Speed over quality? Or is it even a question of that?
First post, and right up my alley. I do hope I don't come off as an elitist though =\
There are few reasons to *need* to hack CSS. You can usually get around the problem by refactoring your XHTML.
I actually do agree. I think hacks are a crutch that infected the Web Standards movement early on along with laziness.
Your CSS / CSS-P toolbox is -huge- and you can typically find a workaround that will work. Sure, vertical centering is all but impossible without hacks or really shady voodoo things going on, but with all the layouts I've done, I've yet to encounter much you super duper need a hack for.
I like to use Overflow Hidden quite a bit as an alternative to clearfix type situations, but that and height: 1%; for has-layout bugs are really my "hack" toolbox, and overflow hidden is actually in the Spec, so I don't have many qualms about it. I dread the day that the height: 1% blows up IE-Next though.
I'm a firm believer that, by focusing on your core markup, and debugging at the core before diving into a hacked solution is the best and easily possible way. It all comes down to whether or not you have the gumption to wade through the wrappers and the css to find the bug. I'm also a firm believer that no hacks are possible on many many layouts.
To circle back to the OP, I've had 3 instances that CSS validation has saved my tail, and a bajillion instances that XHTML validation has tracked down that bug I couldn't, or showed me a glowing path to the bug atleast. I'd have to vote for XHTML validation. Though, like Oli says, the CSS bit is just as important (that ' that lined up with a scratch in my monitor seriously killed me till I broke down and validated).
I also lean heavily toward XHTML validation because of Coda to be honest. Coda has a nice feature where it "english's" out these validation errors, and shows you inline while you code where they are. I flip it on always. When I mess up, I know it immediately. It's a bit annoying at first, but it kicks a ton of ass by the time your done.
Good friggin post ldragon!
» CSS or XHTML Validation: If you had a choice ... Last Reply: 8 months ago by lalindsey.
hmmm I always try to fake the margin with relative positioning, padding instead of margin or I'll fall back on height 1% ( not so reliable for that one but sometimes its the rabbit out of the hat) extra markup sucks, but I'll choose it any day over the hack. Question is whether the devs wanna implement it ha!