<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Inline CSS should not be allowed in strict doctypes</title>
	<atom:link href="http://friendlybit.com/css/inline-css-should-not-be-allowed-in-strict-doctypes/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://friendlybit.com/css/inline-css-should-not-be-allowed-in-strict-doctypes/</link>
	<description>Strategic web development</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 08 May 2012 22:48:12 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.2</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Wm Tipton</title>
		<link>http://friendlybit.com/css/inline-css-should-not-be-allowed-in-strict-doctypes/#comment-33955</link>
		<dc:creator>Wm Tipton</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 03 Jul 2010 03:22:45 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://friendlybit.com/html/inline-css-should-not-be-allowed-in-strict-doctypes/#comment-33955</guid>
		<description>&quot;I perfer not polluting my structure with style.&quot;
=====================================
And that is your prerogative. No one has any business judging your decision in the matter AS LONG AS you are not judging anyone else.

CSS removes the need for HTML styling. We simply have more than one option for using CSS on a web page.
If you dont personally like having styling within your HTML, that is great....more power to ya. But you shouldnt be allowed to speak for those of use who DO want to use inline styling....kwim ?

And my question is....HOW are YOU affected if *I* use inline styling ?
If you are browsing my sites either way the styling is going to have the same effect in the browser whether its inline or external. The viewer isnt going to know the difference and doesnt need to concern themselves with it.

Ill be honest here and I mean no offense, but to me this seems to be a topic for geeks to have something to complain about. There is no honest reason for anyone who doesnt like inline styling and doesnt use it to whine about it....no VALID reason whatsoever.
If we just admit this fact maybe we can move on and all get along :-)</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&#8220;I perfer not polluting my structure with style.&#8221;<br />
=====================================<br />
And that is your prerogative. No one has any business judging your decision in the matter AS LONG AS you are not judging anyone else.</p>
<p>CSS removes the need for HTML styling. We simply have more than one option for using CSS on a web page.<br />
If you dont personally like having styling within your HTML, that is great&#8230;.more power to ya. But you shouldnt be allowed to speak for those of use who DO want to use inline styling&#8230;.kwim ?</p>
<p>And my question is&#8230;.HOW are YOU affected if *I* use inline styling ?<br />
If you are browsing my sites either way the styling is going to have the same effect in the browser whether its inline or external. The viewer isnt going to know the difference and doesnt need to concern themselves with it.</p>
<p>Ill be honest here and I mean no offense, but to me this seems to be a topic for geeks to have something to complain about. There is no honest reason for anyone who doesnt like inline styling and doesnt use it to whine about it&#8230;.no VALID reason whatsoever.<br />
If we just admit this fact maybe we can move on and all get along :-)</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Wm Tipton</title>
		<link>http://friendlybit.com/css/inline-css-should-not-be-allowed-in-strict-doctypes/#comment-33953</link>
		<dc:creator>Wm Tipton</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 03 Jul 2010 01:07:18 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://friendlybit.com/html/inline-css-should-not-be-allowed-in-strict-doctypes/#comment-33953</guid>
		<description>&quot;Inline or external makes absolutely no odds to this. External is useful if you want to use the same styles on multiple pages. Inline is essential for unique pages because you don’t want to be drawing in several style sheets when you can do everything on that one page and you definitely don’t want to cloud up your general styles with hundreds of styles that are only used once or twice around your many pages.
================================================
EXACTLY !

MOST of my webpages (I do webmastering for others also) require that I use quite a bit of absolute positioning for a lot of elements on the page. 
For instance a guy wants a image bumped up 4 pixels and to the right 10 pixels. Well that used to throw something else out of place and so eventually I got smart and just started using the relative position for the container and absolute for elements. So now if I need to bump something nothing else is affected and I can overlap images too, which is something this one client likes as well for some of his pages.

Before everything on the page had to fall where it wanted to. I had a little bit of room for play, but now by using the inline relative/absolute styling I have absolute control over everything on my pages right down to the pixel.

But it requires that every element be positioned individually and that is a LOT of elements to be putting into a separate CSS file that I was driving myself insane with hopping back and forth and then sometimes changing  the wrong thing and having to change it again.

With inline I know EXACTLY which element is being affected...theres no way to be wrong and I dont have to scroll thru hundreds and thousands of lines of styling to find the one Im looking for....its right there on the page itself.

This really is a no brainer.
Those who dont like inline...DONT USE IT :-)
Those who absolutely require it...like me...just use it and not say a word about it to anyone....

wm</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&#8220;Inline or external makes absolutely no odds to this. External is useful if you want to use the same styles on multiple pages. Inline is essential for unique pages because you don’t want to be drawing in several style sheets when you can do everything on that one page and you definitely don’t want to cloud up your general styles with hundreds of styles that are only used once or twice around your many pages.<br />
================================================<br />
EXACTLY !</p>
<p>MOST of my webpages (I do webmastering for others also) require that I use quite a bit of absolute positioning for a lot of elements on the page.<br />
For instance a guy wants a image bumped up 4 pixels and to the right 10 pixels. Well that used to throw something else out of place and so eventually I got smart and just started using the relative position for the container and absolute for elements. So now if I need to bump something nothing else is affected and I can overlap images too, which is something this one client likes as well for some of his pages.</p>
<p>Before everything on the page had to fall where it wanted to. I had a little bit of room for play, but now by using the inline relative/absolute styling I have absolute control over everything on my pages right down to the pixel.</p>
<p>But it requires that every element be positioned individually and that is a LOT of elements to be putting into a separate CSS file that I was driving myself insane with hopping back and forth and then sometimes changing  the wrong thing and having to change it again.</p>
<p>With inline I know EXACTLY which element is being affected&#8230;theres no way to be wrong and I dont have to scroll thru hundreds and thousands of lines of styling to find the one Im looking for&#8230;.its right there on the page itself.</p>
<p>This really is a no brainer.<br />
Those who dont like inline&#8230;DONT USE IT :-)<br />
Those who absolutely require it&#8230;like me&#8230;just use it and not say a word about it to anyone&#8230;.</p>
<p>wm</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Wm Tipton</title>
		<link>http://friendlybit.com/css/inline-css-should-not-be-allowed-in-strict-doctypes/#comment-33952</link>
		<dc:creator>Wm Tipton</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 03 Jul 2010 00:55:25 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://friendlybit.com/html/inline-css-should-not-be-allowed-in-strict-doctypes/#comment-33952</guid>
		<description>&quot;@Wm Tipton: I guess I struck a nerve there. Thing is, the whole idea of strict compliance is to encourage people to remove all stying properties from the HTML. It is, you can go read the spec to confirm it.
==============================================

And it IS removed from the &#039;HTML&#039; in that HTML wont be doing the styling. Seems simple enough.
What I dont like is for someone who doesnt USE something to say that the REST of us should be deprived of it as well. 
I ONLY use an External CSS file for CSS that will apply to MORE than one page. I also use Server Side includes where I have code that will also do the same.
But about 80% of my coding is very much element oriented and to be robbed of inline styling because someone else doesnt like it is, well, communism at its finest. Why dont we just start burning books that the rest of us read if YOU dont personally like them ?

Having three options for CCS styling means YOU dont have to EVER use inline if YOU dont personally like it. That goes for the rest who dont either. I respect that.
But its NOT right for you to bash inline simply because YOU dont use it or like it....even if you hate it, its irrelevant because no one is FORCING you to use it...kwim ?

The whole idea clearly is to use External style sheets where they are LOGICAL....not where they are not.
I dont want a 100,000 line stylesheet with styling it it for every single element in my entire website.
MOST of my sites use position:relative for my wrapper/container with a LOT of elements being position:absolute within that container.
I DO NOT want to have to keep jumping back and forth between my page and a css file trying to track down EVERY SINGLE element in that huge file.
When its done how *I* do my sites inline is the ONLY way to go...I know because Ive tried it both ways and it gets bad really quickly once a few hundred absolutely positioned elements are on the site.

On my sites where an element is exactly the same every time (rarely happens except for header and navigation on my websites) then I toss that stuff into an external CSS file.
But that simply isnt much at all and its far easier for me to use SSI&#039;s for my navigation to begin with.

If they take away inline styling, I&#039;ll go back to using crap software to design my websites or I&#039;ll just stop designing websites altogether.

Those of you who want to get rid of inline are simply thinking of YOUR manner of site design. You arent taking into account that there are a LOT Of us here who dont do it the way you do. 

wm</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&#8220;@Wm Tipton: I guess I struck a nerve there. Thing is, the whole idea of strict compliance is to encourage people to remove all stying properties from the HTML. It is, you can go read the spec to confirm it.<br />
==============================================</p>
<p>And it IS removed from the &#8216;HTML&#8217; in that HTML wont be doing the styling. Seems simple enough.<br />
What I dont like is for someone who doesnt USE something to say that the REST of us should be deprived of it as well.<br />
I ONLY use an External CSS file for CSS that will apply to MORE than one page. I also use Server Side includes where I have code that will also do the same.<br />
But about 80% of my coding is very much element oriented and to be robbed of inline styling because someone else doesnt like it is, well, communism at its finest. Why dont we just start burning books that the rest of us read if YOU dont personally like them ?</p>
<p>Having three options for CCS styling means YOU dont have to EVER use inline if YOU dont personally like it. That goes for the rest who dont either. I respect that.<br />
But its NOT right for you to bash inline simply because YOU dont use it or like it&#8230;.even if you hate it, its irrelevant because no one is FORCING you to use it&#8230;kwim ?</p>
<p>The whole idea clearly is to use External style sheets where they are LOGICAL&#8230;.not where they are not.<br />
I dont want a 100,000 line stylesheet with styling it it for every single element in my entire website.<br />
MOST of my sites use position:relative for my wrapper/container with a LOT of elements being position:absolute within that container.<br />
I DO NOT want to have to keep jumping back and forth between my page and a css file trying to track down EVERY SINGLE element in that huge file.<br />
When its done how *I* do my sites inline is the ONLY way to go&#8230;I know because Ive tried it both ways and it gets bad really quickly once a few hundred absolutely positioned elements are on the site.</p>
<p>On my sites where an element is exactly the same every time (rarely happens except for header and navigation on my websites) then I toss that stuff into an external CSS file.<br />
But that simply isnt much at all and its far easier for me to use SSI&#8217;s for my navigation to begin with.</p>
<p>If they take away inline styling, I&#8217;ll go back to using crap software to design my websites or I&#8217;ll just stop designing websites altogether.</p>
<p>Those of you who want to get rid of inline are simply thinking of YOUR manner of site design. You arent taking into account that there are a LOT Of us here who dont do it the way you do. </p>
<p>wm</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: martin</title>
		<link>http://friendlybit.com/css/inline-css-should-not-be-allowed-in-strict-doctypes/#comment-33922</link>
		<dc:creator>martin</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 15 Jun 2010 11:26:11 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://friendlybit.com/html/inline-css-should-not-be-allowed-in-strict-doctypes/#comment-33922</guid>
		<description>There is nothing wrong with inline, and there is a good reason to use CSS.  Firstly, we do all this separation so that screen readers only read  content instead of style.  Also, if you style with css and the reader is visually impaired, their own setup will adjust the css accordingly.

Inline or external makes absolutely no odds to this.  External is useful if you want to use the same styles on multiple pages.  Inline is essential for unique pages because you don&#039;t want to be drawing in several style sheets when you can do everything on that one page and you definitely don&#039;t want to cloud up your general styles with hundreds of styles that are only used once or twice around your many pages.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>There is nothing wrong with inline, and there is a good reason to use CSS.  Firstly, we do all this separation so that screen readers only read  content instead of style.  Also, if you style with css and the reader is visually impaired, their own setup will adjust the css accordingly.</p>
<p>Inline or external makes absolutely no odds to this.  External is useful if you want to use the same styles on multiple pages.  Inline is essential for unique pages because you don&#8217;t want to be drawing in several style sheets when you can do everything on that one page and you definitely don&#8217;t want to cloud up your general styles with hundreds of styles that are only used once or twice around your many pages.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Emil Stenström</title>
		<link>http://friendlybit.com/css/inline-css-should-not-be-allowed-in-strict-doctypes/#comment-33857</link>
		<dc:creator>Emil Stenström</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 23 May 2010 10:40:19 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://friendlybit.com/html/inline-css-should-not-be-allowed-in-strict-doctypes/#comment-33857</guid>
		<description>@Wm Tipton: I guess I struck a nerve there. Thing is, the whole idea of strict compliance is to encourage people to remove all stying properties from the HTML. It is, you can go read the spec to confirm it. 

So, if the whole idea is to promote external stylesheets, why do people that don&#039;t abide to that idea get to be compliant?

This is not about what I like and not, it&#039;s about what the spec says. If there was a &quot;Blue compliant mode&quot;, I wouldn&#039;t say that red pages where valid blue.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>@Wm Tipton: I guess I struck a nerve there. Thing is, the whole idea of strict compliance is to encourage people to remove all stying properties from the HTML. It is, you can go read the spec to confirm it. </p>
<p>So, if the whole idea is to promote external stylesheets, why do people that don&#8217;t abide to that idea get to be compliant?</p>
<p>This is not about what I like and not, it&#8217;s about what the spec says. If there was a &#8220;Blue compliant mode&#8221;, I wouldn&#8217;t say that red pages where valid blue.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Wm Tipton</title>
		<link>http://friendlybit.com/css/inline-css-should-not-be-allowed-in-strict-doctypes/#comment-33855</link>
		<dc:creator>Wm Tipton</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 22 May 2010 01:21:06 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://friendlybit.com/html/inline-css-should-not-be-allowed-in-strict-doctypes/#comment-33855</guid>
		<description>&quot;What annoys me though is that those using only the style attribute for design and can brag about being strictly compliant.&quot;
=============================
Dear God man...what difference does it make to YOU ?
I mean really. Is your life any worse off ?
I honestly think we need to find a hobby or something when I see this sort of complaint.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&#8220;What annoys me though is that those using only the style attribute for design and can brag about being strictly compliant.&#8221;<br />
=============================<br />
Dear God man&#8230;what difference does it make to YOU ?<br />
I mean really. Is your life any worse off ?<br />
I honestly think we need to find a hobby or something when I see this sort of complaint.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Wm Tipton</title>
		<link>http://friendlybit.com/css/inline-css-should-not-be-allowed-in-strict-doctypes/#comment-33854</link>
		<dc:creator>Wm Tipton</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 22 May 2010 01:07:29 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://friendlybit.com/html/inline-css-should-not-be-allowed-in-strict-doctypes/#comment-33854</guid>
		<description>&quot;Why should you want to include design information inside of a document that you just explicitly stated would separate the two?&quot;
=============================================
Youre forgetting, friend, that NOT ALL of us WANT to do away with even HTML &#039;styling&#039;.
I like CSS much better, so Im fine with it as long as I have an alternative, but I frankly like being able to style on the fly and not having to keep referring back to another huge css file trying to track down where a specific part of the code is in that file.
I prefer having the style code right there on the page Im working on.

I use a style.css file typically for things that will be used on EVERY page...such as backgrounds, page width and such and such.

When it comes to the individual page I like having the css ON the page itself.

I dont get bent out of shape or write negative articles about people who dont do it the way I do...and I really dont think anyone should waste their time worrying about how *I* do it...know what I mean ?

wm</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&#8220;Why should you want to include design information inside of a document that you just explicitly stated would separate the two?&#8221;<br />
=============================================<br />
Youre forgetting, friend, that NOT ALL of us WANT to do away with even HTML &#8216;styling&#8217;.<br />
I like CSS much better, so Im fine with it as long as I have an alternative, but I frankly like being able to style on the fly and not having to keep referring back to another huge css file trying to track down where a specific part of the code is in that file.<br />
I prefer having the style code right there on the page Im working on.</p>
<p>I use a style.css file typically for things that will be used on EVERY page&#8230;such as backgrounds, page width and such and such.</p>
<p>When it comes to the individual page I like having the css ON the page itself.</p>
<p>I dont get bent out of shape or write negative articles about people who dont do it the way I do&#8230;and I really dont think anyone should waste their time worrying about how *I* do it&#8230;know what I mean ?</p>
<p>wm</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Wm Tipton</title>
		<link>http://friendlybit.com/css/inline-css-should-not-be-allowed-in-strict-doctypes/#comment-33853</link>
		<dc:creator>Wm Tipton</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 22 May 2010 01:00:43 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://friendlybit.com/html/inline-css-should-not-be-allowed-in-strict-doctypes/#comment-33853</guid>
		<description>No offense to the author, but frankly I LOVE inline styling.
I use pretty much all 3 types of styling, a external, internal and inline, but I use inline more time than not because I like to make each page...and each part of a page...unique...and I dont want to have to keep checking back to another style sheet file to do it.

If they ever do away with inline styling, Im going back to using cheap software to build my websites.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>No offense to the author, but frankly I LOVE inline styling.<br />
I use pretty much all 3 types of styling, a external, internal and inline, but I use inline more time than not because I like to make each page&#8230;and each part of a page&#8230;unique&#8230;and I dont want to have to keep checking back to another style sheet file to do it.</p>
<p>If they ever do away with inline styling, Im going back to using cheap software to build my websites.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Oyunlar</title>
		<link>http://friendlybit.com/css/inline-css-should-not-be-allowed-in-strict-doctypes/#comment-33471</link>
		<dc:creator>Oyunlar</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 12 Mar 2010 22:50:44 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://friendlybit.com/html/inline-css-should-not-be-allowed-in-strict-doctypes/#comment-33471</guid>
		<description>You were right Emil. Validating the CSS solves my problem. Thanks a lot!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>You were right Emil. Validating the CSS solves my problem. Thanks a lot!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Alex</title>
		<link>http://friendlybit.com/css/inline-css-should-not-be-allowed-in-strict-doctypes/#comment-32911</link>
		<dc:creator>Alex</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 17 Aug 2009 18:58:09 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://friendlybit.com/html/inline-css-should-not-be-allowed-in-strict-doctypes/#comment-32911</guid>
		<description>You were right Emil. Validating the CSS solves my problem. Thanks a lot!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>You were right Emil. Validating the CSS solves my problem. Thanks a lot!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Emil Stenström</title>
		<link>http://friendlybit.com/css/inline-css-should-not-be-allowed-in-strict-doctypes/#comment-32909</link>
		<dc:creator>Emil Stenström</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 15 Aug 2009 13:39:17 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://friendlybit.com/html/inline-css-should-not-be-allowed-in-strict-doctypes/#comment-32909</guid>
		<description>@Alex Design: Not much have changed when it comes to CSS in the latest version of Firefox. My best bet is that you have an error there somewhere, and the best way to figure that out is to simply move out all your CSS to an external file and validate it. Annoying, but something really should do.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>@Alex Design: Not much have changed when it comes to CSS in the latest version of Firefox. My best bet is that you have an error there somewhere, and the best way to figure that out is to simply move out all your CSS to an external file and validate it. Annoying, but something really should do.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Alex Design</title>
		<link>http://friendlybit.com/css/inline-css-should-not-be-allowed-in-strict-doctypes/#comment-32906</link>
		<dc:creator>Alex Design</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 12 Aug 2009 11:50:04 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://friendlybit.com/html/inline-css-should-not-be-allowed-in-strict-doctypes/#comment-32906</guid>
		<description>Hello Emil,

I&#039;m sorry for digging up this old post but after the release of Firefox 3.5.2 i have a bunch of problems with the inline CSS. 

First of all i have to say that i don&#039;t have as much experience as many designers do, but i give my best to acomplish my projects. The reason why i&#039;m writing this comment is that after the release of the new Firefox version a project of mine shows completely different. It&#039;s like the inline CSS is ignored or something like this. I wrote an e-mail to firefox with this problem but i didn&#039;t got any reply.

I hope you can help me in this matter because i have no more options. 

Best regards,
Alex</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hello Emil,</p>
<p>I&#8217;m sorry for digging up this old post but after the release of Firefox 3.5.2 i have a bunch of problems with the inline CSS. </p>
<p>First of all i have to say that i don&#8217;t have as much experience as many designers do, but i give my best to acomplish my projects. The reason why i&#8217;m writing this comment is that after the release of the new Firefox version a project of mine shows completely different. It&#8217;s like the inline CSS is ignored or something like this. I wrote an e-mail to firefox with this problem but i didn&#8217;t got any reply.</p>
<p>I hope you can help me in this matter because i have no more options. </p>
<p>Best regards,<br />
Alex</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: prezenty</title>
		<link>http://friendlybit.com/css/inline-css-should-not-be-allowed-in-strict-doctypes/#comment-30662</link>
		<dc:creator>prezenty</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 28 May 2008 16:58:09 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://friendlybit.com/html/inline-css-should-not-be-allowed-in-strict-doctypes/#comment-30662</guid>
		<description>This is interesting article, I did not it think that it yes. Interesting it knew persons about this how much. Sorry if I wrote bad there now my English is novice and I do not it write yet good.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>This is interesting article, I did not it think that it yes. Interesting it knew persons about this how much. Sorry if I wrote bad there now my English is novice and I do not it write yet good.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: mogens overbeck</title>
		<link>http://friendlybit.com/css/inline-css-should-not-be-allowed-in-strict-doctypes/#comment-24418</link>
		<dc:creator>mogens overbeck</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 19 May 2007 14:06:38 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://friendlybit.com/html/inline-css-should-not-be-allowed-in-strict-doctypes/#comment-24418</guid>
		<description>In my view inline styles *are* actually a good thing, since you can use them during the initial markup phase - that&#039;s often the way I do it, anyway. I mark up, styling as I go, and in the end transfer the css to an external stylesheet, so for me it&#039;s just a handy way of speeding up the workflow. I see your point though, if it wasn&#039;t allowed, people would be forced to learn better development practices, but I&#039;m not sure I agree that&#039;s the way to go about it :o)</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>In my view inline styles *are* actually a good thing, since you can use them during the initial markup phase &#8211; that&#8217;s often the way I do it, anyway. I mark up, styling as I go, and in the end transfer the css to an external stylesheet, so for me it&#8217;s just a handy way of speeding up the workflow. I see your point though, if it wasn&#8217;t allowed, people would be forced to learn better development practices, but I&#8217;m not sure I agree that&#8217;s the way to go about it :o)</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Transparent PNGs and IE6 standalone - Friendly Bit</title>
		<link>http://friendlybit.com/css/inline-css-should-not-be-allowed-in-strict-doctypes/#comment-23797</link>
		<dc:creator>Transparent PNGs and IE6 standalone - Friendly Bit</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 28 Apr 2007 19:44:39 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://friendlybit.com/html/inline-css-should-not-be-allowed-in-strict-doctypes/#comment-23797</guid>
		<description>[...] Two background images later, one that the author could specify (added with a style tag in the head, not with inline styles), and one with the transparency. Everything worked flawlessly in Firefox, Opera, and IE7, as [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] Two background images later, one that the author could specify (added with a style tag in the head, not with inline styles), and one with the transparency. Everything worked flawlessly in Firefox, Opera, and IE7, as [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

<!-- Performance optimized by W3 Total Cache. Learn more: http://www.w3-edge.com/wordpress-plugins/

Page Caching using disk: enhanced (User agent is rejected)
Database Caching 1/9 queries in 0.002 seconds using disk: basic
Object Caching 386/389 objects using disk: basic

Served from: friendlybit.com @ 2012-05-22 09:04:54 -->
