31–40 of 146 posts
I am unmoved by the many "... in pure CSS" posts, but I guess they are the equivalent of "HTTP server in x86 assembly" for CSS designers.
Show me one instance where this is actually applicable and more semantically appropriate than embedding an SVG and I'll shut up for life.
What is the point of doing that instead of using SVG?
What's the point of learning Haskell, if you're never gonna realistically find work with it?
Some things are just fun to do, and stretch the limits of what we can do.
Not everything has to have a real use case "point".
I am unmoved by the many "... in pure CSS" posts, but I guess they are the equivalent of "HTTP server in x86 assembly" for CSS designers.
no kidding. The practicality of this is just non-existent. So you can do many shapes in CSS box-shadow, oh joy. Show me one instance where this is actually applicable and more semantically appropriate than embedding an SVG and I'll shut up for life.
boom. see more here: http://www.polymer-project.org/components/paper-elements/dem...
What is the point of doing that instead of using SVG?
you're not allowed to ask that these days, we have to celebrate using inferior means for the sake of doing so.
Let's pretend people didn't ever make contests of do X in assembly|binay|electronics... Or one liners contests, or blanckspace coding sprints.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I disagree - you still only have one element in markup which is the whole point.
But when you're using CSS to turn one element into three... what is the "whole point", exactly?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I disagree - you still only have one element in markup which is the whole point.
But when you're using CSS to turn one element into three... what is the "whole point", exactly?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
no kidding. The practicality of this is just non-existent. So you can do many shapes in CSS box-shadow, oh joy. Show me one instance where this is actually applicable and more semantically appropriate than embedding an SVG and I'll shut up for life.
To say nothing of the fact that, because you can embed images in CSS, this sort of thing is only interesting at all if you actually look at the CSS source. It's kind of like someone making scrambled eggs with their hands tied behind their backs. Sure, it's challenging, but why should anybody care?
Remember your first novelty hack?
I am unmoved by the many "... in pure CSS" posts, but I guess they are the equivalent of "HTTP server in x86 assembly" for CSS designers.
no kidding. The practicality of this is just non-existent. So you can do many shapes in CSS box-shadow, oh joy. Show me one instance where this is actually applicable and more semantically appropriate than embedding an SVG and I'll shut up for life.