Here, I wish to voice the need to streamline keywords for both types.

The area in question for me is,
In CSS, one spells it as 'background-color'
In HTML one goes 'bgcolor'

The later is more popular due to it requires less bytes than the CSS version.


I wish for, one to use either spellng in either location, and browser support for this.


**** Please post as thus,
++Say that you are in support of this idea. Negative views are also ok

++Other areas of which you think should be streamlined.

Well, since the bgcolor HTML attribute is on it's way out with all the other styling bits that shouldn't be a part of HTML, I don't think it really makes any odds. There's really no need for them to be the same, since you most likely either use one or the other all of the time.

I wouldn't say bgcolor is more popular on the basis of only 9 bytes. I would of thought the logical content/style seperation of CSS would be more important to most people.

I tend to disagree. The declaration of properties in CSS more or less coincides with my own declaration of variables and names within the programming language I use most frequently (ASP). I tend to use underscores to separate words, whereas CSS uses hyphens. But the naming convention is pretty well the same.

It's not even about what's popular with me. It's about "what works". It's also about "the ability to quickly edit a page once I've created it". Between CSS and my own precompiled ASP functions, I've cut my development time down by approx. 85% over the past 7 years.

Well I'd hardly say bgcolor is more popular. If you see it more often it's simply older sites and webmasters who haven't taken the time to learn css.

You also don't need to type background-color. You can just use background which brings the two words a little closer in length.

However when you consider that with bgcolor you need to add it everywhere you want that color to appear and won't need to use background as often to achieve the same thing you'll end up with far less typing using the css version.

I have to agree with Minaki, you're not saving bytes with 'bgcolor' in HTML vs. background-color in CSS. AS I noted in your other thread, it's not necessary to use 'background-color' as "background" by itself will suffice.

Yes CSS is more appropriate and if you want to save bytes put the CSS Styles in a .css file

I've found css to always work and have never had a problem using it. even if im not using classes or id's i just user style="background: black;".

bgcolor isn't supported by much more than TABLE and BODY... background-color: is supported by almost every element.


This is kinda silly, the benefits of CSS outweigh a few characters (which is negligable in todays broadband-popular internet)... and if coded right, CSS will be smaller than the old HTML style.