Is the end of HTML as we know it? [Archive] - HTTPPoint Webmaster Forum

Secret Agent X

06-17-2008, 02:48

Chaddy2222 <spamlovermailbox-sicurity@yahoo.com.au> wrote:

>
>mic...@gmail.com wrote:
>> On Nov 3, 3:35 pm, 1001 Webs <1001w...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > Every respected Web-authoring Guru says that.
>> > This is the era of table-less design, CSS code, XHTML compliant
>> > websites.
>> > Separate layout from content.
>> >
>> > There's no reason to use tables any more.
>> > Everything can be done with CSS.
>> > Tables are so 2002ish ...
>> >
>> > Do you agree with that?
>> > I don't.
>> > I've run into many situations where I just couldn't achieve the
>> > desired effect in different browsers without using tables.
>> > But it could be that I'm not well versed on the intricacies of CSS ...
>>
>> Tables are the easiest
>> If you need something simple use tables
>That's not true. CSS is simple and more powerfull then layout tables.

Rubbish!

Two columns, two rows, resizeable, cross browser compataible:

<table>
<tr>
<td> Cell one</td>
<td> Cell two</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td> Cell three</td>
<td> Cell four</td>
</tr>
</table>

That's simplicity. It's also felxible.

CSS layout is a nightmare. Unreliable, not only because it's suggested
and not required, but also because it varies between browsers and runs
into problems with resizing.

X

Jerry Stuckle

06-17-2008, 02:48

Secret Agent X wrote:
> Chaddy2222 <spamlovermailbox-sicurity@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
>
>> mic...@gmail.com wrote:
>>> On Nov 3, 3:35 pm, 1001 Webs <1001w...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> Every respected Web-authoring Guru says that.
>>>> This is the era of table-less design, CSS code, XHTML compliant
>>>> websites.
>>>> Separate layout from content.
>>>>
>>>> There's no reason to use tables any more.
>>>> Everything can be done with CSS.
>>>> Tables are so 2002ish ...
>>>>
>>>> Do you agree with that?
>>>> I don't.
>>>> I've run into many situations where I just couldn't achieve the
>>>> desired effect in different browsers without using tables.
>>>> But it could be that I'm not well versed on the intricacies of CSS ...
>>> Tables are the easiest
>>> If you need something simple use tables
>> That's not true. CSS is simple and more powerfull then layout tables.
>
> Rubbish!
>
> Two columns, two rows, resizeable, cross browser compataible:
>
> <table>
> <tr>
> <td> Cell one</td>
> <td> Cell two</td>
> </tr>
> <tr>
> <td> Cell three</td>
> <td> Cell four</td>
> </tr>
> </table>
>
> That's simplicity. It's also felxible.
>

Now let's see you make it fluid.

> CSS layout is a nightmare. Unreliable, not only because it's suggested
> and not required, but also because it varies between browsers and runs
> into problems with resizing.
>
> X
>

It's not a nightmare if you understand it. And if you want something to
look *exactly* like you design it, create a PDF. I'd prefer to have
fluid designs which adjust to the size of the user's window.

--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.
jstucklex@attglobal.net
==================

Bone Ur

06-17-2008, 02:48

Well bust mah britches and call me cheeky, on Sat, 03 Nov 2007 13:35:44 GMT
1001 Webs scribed:

> Every respected Web-authoring Guru says that.
> This is the era of table-less design, CSS code, XHTML compliant
> websites.
> Separate layout from content.
>
> There's no reason to use tables any more.
> Everything can be done with CSS.
> Tables are so 2002ish ...
>
> Do you agree with that?

I disagree with anyone who agrees with any absolute statement.
Unequivocally.

> I don't.
> I've run into many situations where I just couldn't achieve the
> desired effect in different browsers without using tables.
> But it could be that I'm not well versed on the intricacies of CSS ...

So then your opinion is based on an uncertain foundation. And the point
is...?

--
Bone Ur
Cavemen have formidable pheromones.

Haines Brown

06-17-2008, 02:48

Chaddy2222 <spamlovermailbox-sicurity@yahoo.com.au> writes:

> > Tables are the easiest
> > If you need something simple use tables

> That's not true. CSS is simple and more powerfull then layout tables.
> As an example check out this template I made.
> http://freewebdesign.awardspace.biz/temp/template.html

While I agree with you that CSS adequately provides for layout, your
example not impressive.

On my browsers (galeon, iceweasel), there were anamolies. The left
panel is shifted down about 0.5em from the right panel. That is, there
is a yellow space between it and the "header", which the right panel
lacks. As a result, not only is there a perhaps undesired yellow space
below the left panel and the footer that is wider than that below the
right panel.

Apparently it is the result of using the KompoZer utility, and it does
not speak much for it. The stylesheet looks confused (the navbar div
seems to be within the header div). As a template, should not the
margins be omitted, or at least set ot defaults?

--

Haines Brown, KB1GRM

Roy A.

06-17-2008, 02:48

On 3 Nov, 19:49, Haines Brown <bro...@teufel.hartford-hwp.com> wrote:
> Chaddy2222 <spamlovermailbox-sicur...@yahoo.com.au> writes:
> > > Tables are the easiest
> > > If you need something simple use tables
> > That's not true. CSS is simple and more powerfull then layout tables.
> > As an example check out this template I made.
> >http://freewebdesign.awardspace.biz/temp/template.html
>
> While I agree with you that CSS adequately provides for layout, your
> example not impressive.

That's the best thing you get until you have to nest those divs.

> On my browsers (galeon, iceweasel), there were anamolies. The left
> panel is shifted down about 0.5em from the right panel. That is, there
> is a yellow space between it and the "header", which the right panel
> lacks. As a result, not only is there a perhaps undesired yellow space
> below the left panel and the footer that is wider than that below the
> right panel.

Even the a simple table is better.

1001 Webs

06-17-2008, 02:48

On Nov 3, 2:50 pm, "rf" <r...@invalid.com> wrote:
> "1001 Webs" <1001w...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:1194096944.823077.155460@57g2000hsv.googlegro ups.com...
>
> > Every respected Web-authoring Guru says that.
> > This is the era of table-less design, CSS code, XHTML compliant
> > websites.
> > Separate layout from content.
>
> > There's no reason to use tables any more.
> > Everything can be done with CSS.
> > Tables are so 2002ish ...
>
> > Do you agree with that?
> > I don't.
> > I've run into many situations where I just couldn't achieve the
> > desired effect in different browsers without using tables.
>
> Sometimes the only way is to use a table. Sometimes. Only sometimes and only
> for a very small part of a page.
>
> One of those times is, of course, if one is offering up tabular data, which
> point you seem to have missed.
Tabular data cannot be displayed with CSS?

> > But it could be that I'm not well versed on the intricacies of CSS ...
>
> Given the site you offered up for review over at alt.html.critique I would
> have to agree with this.
Be more specific, please

1001 Webs

06-17-2008, 02:48

On Nov 3, 3:49 pm, Harlan Messinger
<hmessinger.removet...@comcast.net> wrote:
> 1001 Webs wrote:
> > Every respected Web-authoring Guru says that.
>
> Really?
>
> > This is the era of table-less design, CSS code, XHTML compliant
> > websites.
> > Separate layout from content.
>
> And guess what the content is marked up with? (Hint: HTML.) So either
> you or whoever's prognostications you're reading is confused.
W3 recommends the use of CSS
CSS implementation is actually more than 10 years old.
As far back as 17 December 1996 W3C published CSS level 1
Recommendation (CSS1):
http://www.w3.org/Press/CSS1-REC-PR.html

"The design community has confirmed that using CSS promotes beauty
while making it easier and less expensive to build sites, " said Bert
Bos, W3C Style Activity Lead and one of the original co-authors of the
specification that became CSS level 1, published on 17 December 1996.
http://www.w3.org/Style/CSS10/reactions.html

> Is there some reason you had to post this two five newsgroups?
A very good one, in my humble opinion: because it's relevant to all of
them.
I always like to get second opinions, specially from people who are in
the field.

1001 Webs

06-17-2008, 02:48

On Nov 3, 5:37 pm, Bergamot <berga...@visi.com> wrote:
> 1001 Webs wrote:
>
> > There's no reason to use tables any more.
> > Do you agree with that?
>
> yawn
>
> This is a boring subject that is only brought up by clueless, lazy
> people that haven't bothered reading the newsgroup archives.
All depends on what newsgroup archives you bother to read, you know?

> > I don't.
> > But it could be that I'm not well versed on the intricacies of CSS ...
>
> indeed
And I presume you certainly are?
Ain't you?

Bergamot

06-17-2008, 02:48

1001 Webs wrote:
> On Nov 3, 2:50 pm, "rf" <r...@invalid.com> wrote:
>>
>> Sometimes the only way is to use a table.
>>
>> One of those times is, of course, if one is offering up tabular data, which
>> point you seem to have missed.
> Tabular data cannot be displayed with CSS?

You could, but why would you want to? Tables are intended for tabular
data. Use the right markup for the job.

--
Berg

Travis Newbury

06-17-2008, 02:48

On Nov 3, 2:09 pm, Jerry Stuckle <jstuck...@attglobal.net> wrote:
> It's not a nightmare if you understand it.
True, but CSS != fluid design

> And if you want something to
> look *exactly* like you design it, create a PDF.

That is not true at all. While it may not look exactly the same on
100% of the visitors, you can design it to look the same on the
overwhelming majority of visitors. If it were not this way the
corporate world would be rushing to use fluid design. But they
aren't, they are using fixed width. Because that is what people want,
and that is what best suits the corporate world.

> I'd prefer to have
> fluid designs which adjust to the size of the user's window.

And the key to your statement is "I'd prefer...."

I prefer fixed width. So why is what I prefer wrong, and what you
prefer right?

It isn't. It is a preference. Neither of us is right or wrong.

Bergamot

06-17-2008, 02:48

1001 Webs wrote:
> On Nov 3, 5:37 pm, Bergamot <berga...@visi.com> wrote:
>> 1001 Webs wrote:
>>
>> > There's no reason to use tables any more.
>>
>> This is a boring subject that is only brought up by clueless, lazy
>> people that haven't bothered reading the newsgroup archives.
> All depends on what newsgroup archives you bother to read, you know?

Hmmm... that just tells me you did little or no research on your own.

>> > But it could be that I'm not well versed on the intricacies of CSS ...
>>
>> indeed
> And I presume you certainly are?

That isn't relevant, but based on what I've seen of your work, then I'm
a lot farther along than you. But instead of doing some learning on your
own to improve your own understanding, you decide to waste people's time
with the tired 'tables vs css' drivel.

--
Berg

Ben C

06-17-2008, 02:48

On 2007-11-03, 1001 Webs <1001webs@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Nov 3, 2:50 pm, "rf" <r...@invalid.com> wrote:
>> "1001 Webs" <1001w...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>
>> news:1194096944.823077.155460@57g2000hsv.googlegro ups.com...
>>
>> > Every respected Web-authoring Guru says that.
>> > This is the era of table-less design, CSS code, XHTML compliant
>> > websites.
>> > Separate layout from content.
>>
>> > There's no reason to use tables any more.
>> > Everything can be done with CSS.
>> > Tables are so 2002ish ...
>>
>> > Do you agree with that?
>> > I don't.
>> > I've run into many situations where I just couldn't achieve the
>> > desired effect in different browsers without using tables.
>>
>> Sometimes the only way is to use a table. Sometimes. Only sometimes and only
>> for a very small part of a page.
>>
>> One of those times is, of course, if one is offering up tabular data, which
>> point you seem to have missed.
> Tabular data cannot be displayed with CSS?

Of course it can, and the default styles for <table>, <tr>, <td> etc.
will usually give you a good layout for your tabular data.

You can also use CSS to do tabular layouts of non-tabular data.

You can separate layout from content to your heart's content, and layout
your elements with display: table, display: table-row, display:
table-cell, etc., if you require table-layout behaviour, whether the
content is tabular or not.

It just isn't supported in the current version of IE. That's a
completely different issue though.

1001 Webs

06-17-2008, 02:48

On Nov 3, 10:49 pm, Bergamot <berga...@visi.com> wrote:
> 1001 Webs wrote:
> > On Nov 3, 5:37 pm, Bergamot <berga...@visi.com> wrote:
> >> 1001 Webs wrote:
>
> >> > There's no reason to use tables any more.
>
> >> This is a boring subject that is only brought up by clueless, lazy
> >> people that haven't bothered reading the newsgroup archives.
> > All depends on what newsgroup archives you bother to read, you know?
>
> Hmmm... that just tells me you did little or no research on your own.
>
> >> > But it could be that I'm not well versed on the intricacies of CSS ...
>
> >> indeed
> > And I presume you certainly are?
>
> That isn't relevant, but based on what I've seen of your work, then I'm
> a lot farther along than you. But instead of doing some learning on your
> own to improve your own understanding, you decide to waste people's time
> with the tired 'tables vs css' drivel.

The poster just above you would surely disagree about the absoluteness
of that statement.
Which speaks a lot of both your ability to screen Newsgroups and to
understand the needs of today's web authoring.
I have done some learning on my own and what I learned is that is not
a unified criteria on this issue because of different browsers display
pages in different manners.
And I learned too that it does NOT happen when using tables.
In that sense I am long way before you.
Look around just a little and you'll find out for yourself. It's worth
the effort, believe me.

P.D.
Where the heck did my answer to:
"I disagree with anyone who agrees with any absolute statement. "
replied with:
"then you'll disagree with absolute positioning"
go?

Red E. Kilowatt

06-17-2008, 02:48

Chaddy2222 <spamlovermailbox-sicurity@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message:
1194104947.556407.262420@z24g2000prh.googlegroups. com,

> mic...@gmail.com wrote:
>> On Nov 3, 3:35 pm, 1001 Webs <1001w...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Every respected Web-authoring Guru says that.
>>> This is the era of table-less design, CSS code, XHTML compliant
>>> websites.
>>> Separate layout from content.
>>>
>>> There's no reason to use tables any more.
>>> Everything can be done with CSS.
>>> Tables are so 2002ish ...
>>>
>>> Do you agree with that?
>>> I don't.
>>> I've run into many situations where I just couldn't achieve the
>>> desired effect in different browsers without using tables.
>>> But it could be that I'm not well versed on the intricacies of CSS
>>> ...
>>
>> Tables are the easiest
>> If you need something simple use tables
> That's not true. CSS is simple and more powerfull then layout tables.

Simple for you, maybe. I find CSS incomprehensible for anything beyond
specifying fonts and backgrounds, like trying to position boxes within
an overall layout.

And honestly, I don't want to learn, because as far as I'm concerned
tables work fine. Granted, improving the text to mark-up ratio on my
sites would probably help their search engine ranking slightly, but I'd
rather send my time figuring out new ways to make money.

--
Red

Adrienne Boswell

06-17-2008, 02:48

Gazing into my crystal ball I observed "Jonathan N. Little"
<lws4art@centralva.net> writing in news:7b1b4$472c9f47$40cba7c4$21950
@NAXS.COM:

> mic123@gmail.com wrote:
>> On Nov 3, 3:35 pm, 1001 Webs <1001w...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Every respected Web-authoring Guru says that.
>>> This is the era of table-less design, CSS code, XHTML compliant
>>> websites.
>>> Separate layout from content.
>>>
>>> There's no reason to use tables any more.
>>> Everything can be done with CSS.
>>> Tables are so 2002ish ...
>>>
>>> Do you agree with that?
>>> I don't.
>>> I've run into many situations where I just couldn't achieve the
>>> desired effect in different browsers without using tables.
>>> But it could be that I'm not well versed on the intricacies of CSS
....
>>
>> Tables are the easiest
>> If you need something simple use tables
>>
>
> See if you feel that way after editing a site with a half dozen nested
> tables with row and column spans...
>

Yes, without going into the HTML, and having the server write a lot of
javascript href="javascript('somethingbad')"

I inherited that nightmare a few years ago, all gone now.

--
Adrienne Boswell at Home
Arbpen Web Site Design Services
http://www.cavalcade-of-coding.info
Please respond to the group so others can share

Jerry Stuckle

06-17-2008, 02:48

Travis Newbury wrote:
> On Nov 3, 2:09 pm, Jerry Stuckle <jstuck...@attglobal.net> wrote:
>> It's not a nightmare if you understand it.
> True, but CSS != fluid design
>

That's not the point. CSS CAN be fluid design. Tables cannot really be
fluid.

>> And if you want something to
>> look *exactly* like you design it, create a PDF.
>
> That is not true at all. While it may not look exactly the same on
> 100% of the visitors, you can design it to look the same on the
> overwhelming majority of visitors. If it were not this way the
> corporate world would be rushing to use fluid design. But they
> aren't, they are using fixed width. Because that is what people want,
> and that is what best suits the corporate world.
>

Read what I said. Then respond with some intelligence.

If it doesn't look "exactly the same on 100% of the visitors", it isn't
exactly the same, is it?

>> I'd prefer to have
>> fluid designs which adjust to the size of the user's window.
>
> And the key to your statement is "I'd prefer...."
>

Not at all. Any *competent* webmaster would be able to do such.

> I prefer fixed width. So why is what I prefer wrong, and what you
> prefer right?
>

So do most graphic designers I know. And that's fine for a piece of
paper. But it's shows complete incompetence on the web, which is a
fluid layout.

> It isn't. It is a preference. Neither of us is right or wrong.
>
>

It is a lack of competence on your part.

--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.
jstucklex@attglobal.net
==================

Jonathan N. Little

06-17-2008, 02:48

1001 Webs wrote:

> P.D.
> Where the heck did my answer to:
> "I disagree with anyone who agrees with any absolute statement. "
> replied with:
> "then you'll disagree with absolute positioning"
> go?
>

Just further down the tread. The shortcomings of *not* using a real
newsreader.

--
Take care,

Jonathan
-------------------
LITTLE WORKS STUDIO
http://www.LittleWorksStudio.com

dorayme

06-17-2008, 02:48

In article <nIadnR_KOZMCgLDanZ2dnUVZ_v2pnZ2d@comcast.com>,
Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> wrote:

> Tables cannot really be
> fluid.

You have said this twice now but have not indicated what you
mean. A table of tabular data can be very fluid or it can be not
very fluid (because of poor design and the use of fixed widths
etc). So what does it mean to say "cannot be really fluid"?

--
dorayme

Jerry Stuckle

06-17-2008, 02:48

dorayme wrote:
> In article <nIadnR_KOZMCgLDanZ2dnUVZ_v2pnZ2d@comcast.com>,
> Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> wrote:
>
>> Tables cannot really be
>> fluid.
>
> You have said this twice now but have not indicated what you
> mean. A table of tabular data can be very fluid or it can be not
> very fluid (because of poor design and the use of fixed widths
> etc). So what does it mean to say "cannot be really fluid"?
>

Let's see you wrap data in a table around a picture, for instance.

--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.
jstucklex@attglobal.net
==================

Jim Moe

06-17-2008, 02:48

On 11/03/07 06:35 am, 1001 Webs wrote:
> Every respected Web-authoring Guru says that.
> This is the era of table-less design, CSS code, XHTML compliant
> websites.
> Separate layout from content.
>
> Do you agree with that?
> I don't.
>
Troll.

--
jmm (hyphen) list (at) sohnen-moe (dot) com
(Remove .AXSPAMGN for email)

Chaddy2222

06-17-2008, 02:48

Haines Brown wrote:

> Chaddy2222 <spamlovermailbox-sicurity@yahoo.com.au> writes:
>
> > > Tables are the easiest
> > > If you need something simple use tables
>
> > That's not true. CSS is simple and more powerfull then layout tables.
> > As an example check out this template I made.
> > http://freewebdesign.awardspace.biz/temp/template.html
>
> While I agree with you that CSS adequately provides for layout, your
> example not impressive.
>
> On my browsers (galeon, iceweasel), there were anamolies. The left
> panel is shifted down about 0.5em from the right panel. That is, there
> is a yellow space between it and the "header", which the right panel
> lacks. As a result, not only is there a perhaps undesired yellow space
> below the left panel and the footer that is wider than that below the
> right panel.
>
That's due to the different colour on the body showing through.

> Apparently it is the result of using the KompoZer utility, and it does
> not speak much for it. The stylesheet looks confused (the navbar div
> seems to be within the header div). As a template, should not the
> margins be omitted, or at least set ot defaults?
>
It was a template I developed for my own sites.
http://freewebdesign.awardspace.biz now is useing it.
It should look a lot better as I changed a lot of things in the CSS.
--
Regards Chad.

Harlan Messinger

06-17-2008, 02:48

1001 Webs wrote:
> On Nov 3, 3:49 pm, Harlan Messinger
> <hmessinger.removet...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> 1001 Webs wrote:
>>> Every respected Web-authoring Guru says that.
>> Really?
>>
>>> This is the era of table-less design, CSS code, XHTML compliant
>>> websites.
>>> Separate layout from content.
>> And guess what the content is marked up with? (Hint: HTML.) So either
>> you or whoever's prognostications you're reading is confused.
> W3 recommends the use of CSS

You are misunderstanding this. W3 recommends the use of CSS for
*presentation*. Without content marked up with HTML *to apply the CSS
to*, there is no web page.

1001 Webs

06-17-2008, 02:48

On Nov 4, 9:14 am, Harlan Messinger
<hmessinger.removet...@comcast.net> wrote:
> 1001 Webs wrote:
> > On Nov 3, 3:49 pm, Harlan Messinger
> > <hmessinger.removet...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >> 1001 Webs wrote:
> >>> Every respected Web-authoring Guru says that.
> >> Really?
>
> >>> This is the era of table-less design, CSS code, XHTML compliant
> >>> websites.
> >>> Separate layout from content.
> >> And guess what the content is marked up with? (Hint: HTML.) So either
> >> you or whoever's prognostications you're reading is confused.
> > W3 recommends the use of CSS
>
> You are misunderstanding this. W3 recommends the use of CSS for
> *presentation*. Without content marked up with HTML *to apply the CSS
> to*, there is no web page.
W3 recommends the use of CSS for *presentation*
and XHTML for content,
Please, correct me if i'm wrong.

Lars Eighner

06-17-2008, 02:48

In our last episode, <1194172361.049047.57070@d55g2000hsg.googlegroups.c om>,
the lovely and talented 1001 Webs broadcast on
comp.infosystems.www.authoring.html:

> W3 recommends the use of CSS for *presentation*
> and XHTML for content,
> Please, correct me if i'm wrong.

You're wrong. That XHTML is more recent does not mean that it is more
highly recommended than HTML 4.01.

It is true enough that it looks like everything is heading toward XML, but
it is pretty much possible to start marking things up with an eye to that
end in HTML, and much more important to move to strict.

--
Lars Eighner <http://larseighner.com/> <http://myspace.com/larseighner>
Countdown: 443 days to go.
What do you do when you're debranded?

Jonathan N. Little

06-17-2008, 02:48

Lars Eighner wrote:
> In our last episode, <1194172361.049047.57070@d55g2000hsg.googlegroups.c om>,
> the lovely and talented 1001 Webs broadcast on
> comp.infosystems.www.authoring.html:
>
>> W3 recommends the use of CSS for *presentation*
>> and XHTML for content,
>> Please, correct me if i'm wrong.
>
> You're wrong. That XHTML is more recent does not mean that it is more
> highly recommended than HTML 4.01.
>

Agree, also I would add XHTML looked like a the recommended path but
Microsoft "dropped anchor" on that course.

--
Take care,

Jonathan
-------------------
LITTLE WORKS STUDIO
http://www.LittleWorksStudio.com

Jonathan N. Little

06-17-2008, 02:48

Jim Moe wrote:
> On 11/03/07 06:35 am, 1001 Webs wrote:
>> Every respected Web-authoring Guru says that.
>> This is the era of table-less design, CSS code, XHTML compliant
>> websites.
>> Separate layout from content.
>>
>> Do you agree with that?
>> I don't.
>>
> Troll.
>

Don't see the bridge but sure smells of one.

--
Take care,

Jonathan
-------------------
LITTLE WORKS STUDIO
http://www.LittleWorksStudio.com

1001 Webs

06-17-2008, 02:48

On Nov 4, 12:02 pm, Lars Eighner <use...@larseighner.com> wrote:
> In our last episode, <1194172361.049047.57...@d55g2000hsg.googlegroups.c om>,
> the lovely and talented 1001 Webs broadcast on
> comp.infosystems.www.authoring.html:
>
> > W3 recommends the use of CSS for *presentation*
> > and XHTML for content,
> > Please, correct me if i'm wrong.
>
> You're wrong. That XHTML is more recent does not mean that it is more
> highly recommended than HTML 4.01.

Tutorial: Character sets & encodings in XHTML, HTML and CSS

Intended audience: HTML/XHTML and CSS content authors.
This material is applicable whether you create documents in an editor,
or via scripting.

Assumptions & recommendations in this section

*In the rest of this tutorial we will assume that you are serving
pages to be rendered in standards mode by relatively up-to-date user
agents.
* We recommend the use of XHTML wherever possible; and if you
serve XHTML as text/html we assume that you are conforming to the
compatibility guidelines in Appendix C of the XHTML 1.0 specification.
* We recognize that XHTML served as XML is still not widely
supported, and that therefore many XHTML 1.0 pages will be served as
text/html.
* We assume that, because of its tendency to cause Internet
Explorer 6 to render in quirks mode, some people prefer not to use the
XML declaration for XHTML served as text/html.
* XHTML served as XML should be served as application/xhtml+xml.

http://www.w3.org/International/tutorials/tutorial-char-enc/

> It is true enough that it looks like everything is heading toward XML, but
> it is pretty much possible to start marking things up with an eye to that
> end in HTML, and much more important to move to strict.

Jonathan N. Little

06-17-2008, 02:48

1001 Webs wrote:

> * XHTML served as XML should be served as application/xhtml+xml.

And if you do, MSIE users will see a download box and not your page.

--
Take care,

Jonathan
-------------------
LITTLE WORKS STUDIO
http://www.LittleWorksStudio.com

mic123@gmail.com

06-17-2008, 02:48

On Nov 4, 12:33 am, Adrienne Boswell <arb...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Gazing into my crystal ball I observed "Jonathan N. Little"
> <lws4...@centralva.net> writing in news:7b1b4$472c9f47$40cba7c4$21950
> @NAXS.COM:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > mic...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> On Nov 3, 3:35 pm, 1001 Webs <1001w...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>> Every respected Web-authoring Guru says that.
> >>> This is the era of table-less design, CSS code, XHTML compliant
> >>> websites.
> >>> Separate layout from content.
>
> >>> There's no reason to use tables any more.
> >>> Everything can be done with CSS.
> >>> Tables are so 2002ish ...
>
> >>> Do you agree with that?
> >>> I don't.
> >>> I've run into many situations where I just couldn't achieve the
> >>> desired effect in different browsers without using tables.
> >>> But it could be that I'm not well versed on the intricacies of CSS
> ...
>
> >> Tables are the easiest
> >> If you need something simple use tables
>
> > See if you feel that way after editing a site with a half dozen nested
> > tables with row and column spans...
>
> Yes, without going into the HTML, and having the server write a lot of
> javascript href="javascript('somethingbad')"
>
> I inherited that nightmare a few years ago, all gone now.
>
> --
> Adrienne Boswell at Home
> Arbpen Web Site Design Serviceshttp://www.cavalcade-of-coding.info
> Please respond to the group so others can share- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Is CSS faster than tables?

Jerry Stuckle

06-17-2008, 02:48

mic123@gmail.com wrote:
> On Nov 4, 12:33 am, Adrienne Boswell <arb...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> Gazing into my crystal ball I observed "Jonathan N. Little"
>> <lws4...@centralva.net> writing in news:7b1b4$472c9f47$40cba7c4$21950
>> @NAXS.COM:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> mic...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>> On Nov 3, 3:35 pm, 1001 Webs <1001w...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> Every respected Web-authoring Guru says that.
>>>>> This is the era of table-less design, CSS code, XHTML compliant
>>>>> websites.
>>>>> Separate layout from content.
>>>>> There's no reason to use tables any more.
>>>>> Everything can be done with CSS.
>>>>> Tables are so 2002ish ...
>>>>> Do you agree with that?
>>>>> I don't.
>>>>> I've run into many situations where I just couldn't achieve the
>>>>> desired effect in different browsers without using tables.
>>>>> But it could be that I'm not well versed on the intricacies of CSS
>> ...
>>
>>>> Tables are the easiest
>>>> If you need something simple use tables
>>> See if you feel that way after editing a site with a half dozen nested
>>> tables with row and column spans...
>> Yes, without going into the HTML, and having the server write a lot of
>> javascript href="javascript('somethingbad')"
>>
>> I inherited that nightmare a few years ago, all gone now.
>>
>> --
>> Adrienne Boswell at Home
>> Arbpen Web Site Design Serviceshttp://www.cavalcade-of-coding.info
>> Please respond to the group so others can share- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> Is CSS faster than tables?
>
>

Define "faster".

Download? Depends on the page. Maybe yes, maybe no.

Rendering? Depends on the page structure and browser being used. Maybe
yes, maybe no.

But if you've got problems with the time it takes to display your page,
CSS alone probably is neither the cause nor the solution.

--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.
jstucklex@attglobal.net
==================

Heidi

06-17-2008, 02:48

Chaddy2222 wrote:
: It was a template I developed for my own sites.
: http://freewebdesign.awardspace.biz now is useing it.
: It should look a lot better as I changed a lot of things in the CSS.

I hope you can take constructive criticism...

The flash thingy for your portfolio is annoying. Why does the text have to
flip, roll, spin, or bounce oddly into place?

Heidi

--
Photography Scavenger Hunt
http://www.photographyscavengerhunt.com/

Harlan Messinger

06-17-2008, 02:48

1001 Webs wrote:
> On Nov 4, 9:14 am, Harlan Messinger
> <hmessinger.removet...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> 1001 Webs wrote:
>>> On Nov 3, 3:49 pm, Harlan Messinger
>>> <hmessinger.removet...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>> 1001 Webs wrote:
>>>>> Every respected Web-authoring Guru says that.
>>>> Really?
>>>>> This is the era of table-less design, CSS code, XHTML compliant
>>>>> websites.
>>>>> Separate layout from content.
>>>> And guess what the content is marked up with? (Hint: HTML.) So either
>>>> you or whoever's prognostications you're reading is confused.
>>> W3 recommends the use of CSS
>> You are misunderstanding this. W3 recommends the use of CSS for
>> *presentation*. Without content marked up with HTML *to apply the CSS
>> to*, there is no web page.
> W3 recommends the use of CSS for *presentation*
> and XHTML for content,
> Please, correct me if i'm wrong.

I missed that you had mentioned XHTML, but no matter: XHTML is a variety
of HTML, pure and simple, just as HTML 3.2 and HTML 4.01 are varieties
of HTML. XHTML is just an XML-compliant variety. In any event, it has
nothing to do with whether or not you use tableless design or otherwise
separate presentation from content, since you can (mis)use XHTML for
presentation just as easily as you can (mis)use HTML 4.01 for
presentation. So you're confusing several issues here and, ultimately, I
now can't figure out what your point was!

1001 Webs

06-17-2008, 02:48

On Nov 4, 4:34 pm, Harlan Messinger
<hmessinger.removet...@comcast.net> wrote:
> 1001 Webs wrote:
> > On Nov 4, 9:14 am, Harlan Messinger
> > <hmessinger.removet...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >> 1001 Webs wrote:
> >>> On Nov 3, 3:49 pm, Harlan Messinger
> >>> <hmessinger.removet...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >>>> 1001 Webs wrote:
> >>>>> Every respected Web-authoring Guru says that.
> >>>> Really?
> >>>>> This is the era of table-less design, CSS code, XHTML compliant
> >>>>> websites.
> >>>>> Separate layout from content.
> >>>> And guess what the content is marked up with? (Hint: HTML.) So either
> >>>> you or whoever's prognostications you're reading is confused.
> >>> W3 recommends the use of CSS
> >> You are misunderstanding this. W3 recommends the use of CSS for
> >> *presentation*. Without content marked up with HTML *to apply the CSS
> >> to*, there is no web page.
> > W3 recommends the use of CSS for *presentation*
> > and XHTML for content,
> > Please, correct me if i'm wrong.
>
> I missed that you had mentioned XHTML, but no matter: XHTML is a variety
> of HTML, pure and simple, just as HTML 3.2 and HTML 4.01 are varieties
> of HTML. XHTML is just an XML-compliant variety.
But there are major differences.
HTML is not in XML format.
You have to make the changes necessary to make the document proper XML
before you can get it accepted as XML.

> In any event, it has
> nothing to do with whether or not you use tableless design or otherwise
> separate presentation from content, since you can (mis)use XHTML for
> presentation just as easily as you can (mis)use HTML 4.01 for
> presentation. So you're confusing several issues here and, ultimately, I
> now can't figure out what your point was!
The point I was trying to make (rather the question I was putting
forward) was whether we should be embracing the new standards.
Bear in mind that CSS rules that apply to HTML, apply only to
documents that are delivered as text/html, but not to XHTML.
So we'd better wait until they sort everything out, most likely with
the upcoming XHTML2.
That's the final conclusion.

Rob Waaijenberg

06-17-2008, 02:48

1001 Webs schreef:

[snipped]

> That's the final conclusion.
>

And with this happy note
we say goodbye to all our listeners.

We'll be back!

--
Rob

Gregor Kofler

06-17-2008, 02:48

1001 Webs meinte:

> Bear in mind that CSS rules that apply to HTML, apply only to
> documents that are delivered as text/html, but not to XHTML.

A-ha. Could you elaborate on that?

> So we'd better wait until they sort everything out, most likely with
> the upcoming XHTML2.

Ok. Keep on waiting. In the meantime I can sell my HTML4 pages with
accompanying CSS which run in practically every contemporary browser.

> That's the final conclusion.

And hopefully the end of this idiotic thread.

Gregor

--
http://www.gregorkofler.at ::: Landschafts- und Reisefotografie
http://www.licht-blick.at ::: Forum für Multivisionsvorträge
http://www.image2d.com ::: Bildagentur für den alpinen Raum

Gregor Kofler

06-17-2008, 02:48

Gregor Kofler meinte:
> 1001 Webs meinte:
>
>> Bear in mind that CSS rules that apply to HTML, apply only to
>> documents that are delivered as text/html, but not to XHTML.
>
> A-ha. Could you elaborate on that?

Just to make sure: A rhetorical question. Even your elaborate answer
won't provide any new or useful insights.

--
http://www.gregorkofler.at ::: Landschafts- und Reisefotografie
http://www.licht-blick.at ::: Forum für Multivisionsvorträge
http://www.image2d.com ::: Bildagentur für den alpinen Raum

1001 Webs

06-17-2008, 02:48

On Nov 4, 5:26 pm, Gregor Kofler <use...@gregorkofler.at> wrote:
> Gregor Kofler meinte:
>
> > 1001 Webs meinte:
>
> >> Bear in mind that CSS rules that apply to HTML, apply only to
> >> documents that are delivered as text/html, but not to XHTML.
>
> > A-ha. Could you elaborate on that?
>
> Just to make sure: A rhetorical question. Even your elaborate answer
> won't provide any new or useful insights.

- Thread reopened for the sake of providing useful insights -

Let's hear what the developers have to say about this question at:
http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/2004/xhtml-faq#css

And finally, I declare this thread officially closed.
Stay tuned for more XHTML episodes coming real soon to your favorite
text editor!

Bone Ur

06-17-2008, 02:48

Well bust mah britches and call me cheeky, on Sun, 04 Nov 2007 13:50:46
GMT 1001 Webs scribed:

>> You're wrong. That XHTML is more recent does not mean that it is
>> more highly recommended than HTML 4.01.
> <snip>
> *In the rest of this tutorial we will assume that you are serving
> pages to be rendered in standards mode by relatively up-to-date user
> agents.
> * We recommend the use of XHTML wherever possible; and if you
> serve XHTML as text/html we assume that you are conforming to the
> compatibility guidelines in Appendix C of the XHTML 1.0 specification.
> * We recognize that XHTML served as XML is still not widely
> supported, and that therefore many XHTML 1.0 pages will be served as
> text/html.
> * We assume that, because of its tendency to cause Internet
> Explorer 6 to render in quirks mode, some people prefer not to use the
> XML declaration for XHTML served as text/html.
> * XHTML served as XML should be served as application/xhtml+xml.
>
> http://www.w3.org/International/tutorials/tutorial-char-enc/

Did you ever notice that most of what the w3c recommends is a restriction
rather than an enhancement? Such policies are supposed to make things work
better, which they may do about half the time - maybe. From what I recall,
one cannot use the javascript method "document.write" in xhtml and you have
to put something like [[CDATA && ]] (?) near the element terminators.
Another of my favorites is the requirement of slash terminators for
unclosed elements.

But, er, why? Is it impossible to make an xhtml parser without the need
for such jerkocity? Well, if it isn't, I sincerely doubt that xhtml (at
least) is the future of the Web. And btw, the w3c recommendations aren't
sacrosanct. Quite the opposite at times.

--
Bone Ur

When I was a young man I learned that having sex with a woman is fun until
you either get caught or married.

Jonathan N. Little

06-17-2008, 02:48

mic123@gmail.com wrote:

>
> Is CSS faster than tables?
>

That is hard to say. Depends on what you do. If you use a table for
layout have have to add all kinds of nesting, rowspans, colspans, and
html attributes for the table cells, you can certainly bloat your markup
over CSS. One thing for certain if you have to edit the beast it will
take you longer than with proper markup and CSS. With the typical
table-layout a complete rewrite is often easier and faster...

--
Take care,

Jonathan
-------------------
LITTLE WORKS STUDIO
http://www.LittleWorksStudio.com

Harlan Messinger

06-17-2008, 02:48

1001 Webs wrote:
> On Nov 4, 4:34 pm, Harlan Messinger
> <hmessinger.removet...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> 1001 Webs wrote:
>>> On Nov 4, 9:14 am, Harlan Messinger
>>> <hmessinger.removet...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>> 1001 Webs wrote:
>>>>> On Nov 3, 3:49 pm, Harlan Messinger
>>>>> <hmessinger.removet...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>>>> 1001 Webs wrote:
>>>>>>> Every respected Web-authoring Guru says that.
>>>>>> Really?
>>>>>>> This is the era of table-less design, CSS code, XHTML compliant
>>>>>>> websites.
>>>>>>> Separate layout from content.
>>>>>> And guess what the content is marked up with? (Hint: HTML.) So either
>>>>>> you or whoever's prognostications you're reading is confused.
>>>>> W3 recommends the use of CSS
>>>> You are misunderstanding this. W3 recommends the use of CSS for
>>>> *presentation*. Without content marked up with HTML *to apply the CSS
>>>> to*, there is no web page.
>>> W3 recommends the use of CSS for *presentation*
>>> and XHTML for content,
>>> Please, correct me if i'm wrong.
>> I missed that you had mentioned XHTML, but no matter: XHTML is a variety
>> of HTML, pure and simple, just as HTML 3.2 and HTML 4.01 are varieties
>> of HTML. XHTML is just an XML-compliant variety.
> But there are major differences.
> HTML is not in XML format.

That's why there's XHTML. That's what I just said.

> You have to make the changes necessary to make the document proper XML
> before you can get it accepted as XML.

And? You had to change an HTML 3.2 document to be HTML 4.01 before it
would be accepted as HTML 4.01. It was still *HTML* the whole time.

>> In any event, it has
>> nothing to do with whether or not you use tableless design or otherwise
>> separate presentation from content, since you can (mis)use XHTML for
>> presentation just as easily as you can (mis)use HTML 4.01 for
>> presentation. So you're confusing several issues here and, ultimately, I
>> now can't figure out what your point was!
> The point I was trying to make (rather the question I was putting
> forward) was whether we should be embracing the new standards.

CSS, absolutely, and that isn't a new revelation, it's been the
advisable approach to web page production for years. XHTML, no, for
reasons that have been described by others many times in c.i.w.a.h.,
unless you there is a specific reason why your page's source code needs
to be in XML format, and even then you need to know the ramifications of
using XHTML in the current browser environment. So you might consider
storing your content in XHTML, or in ANY form of XML that might be
useful for your particular content, and then transform it to HTML 4.01
at the time it's served.

Jim Moe

06-17-2008, 02:48

On 11/04/07 05:44 am, Jonathan N. Little wrote:
>>> Every respected Web-authoring Guru says that.
>>> This is the era of table-less design, CSS code, XHTML compliant
>>> websites.
>>> Separate layout from content.
>>>
>>> Do you agree with that?
>>> I don't.
>>>
>> Troll.
>
> Don't see the bridge but sure smells of one.
>
Yes. The arguments from incompetence are a classic sign. "I don't
understand this other stuff, therefore what I do know is the one true way."

--
jmm (hyphen) list (at) sohnen-moe (dot) com
(Remove .AXSPAMGN for email)

Jonathan N. Little

06-17-2008, 02:48

Jim Moe wrote:
> On 11/04/07 05:44 am, Jonathan N. Little wrote:
>>>> Every respected Web-authoring Guru says that.
>>>> This is the era of table-less design, CSS code, XHTML compliant
>>>> websites.
>>>> Separate layout from content.
>>>>
>>>> Do you agree with that?
>>>> I don't.
>>>>
>>> Troll.
>> Don't see the bridge but sure smells of one.
>>
> Yes. The arguments from incompetence are a classic sign. "I don't
> understand this other stuff, therefore what I do know is the one true way."
>

There is a certain security it hat type of thinking, "Inquiring minds
are not to be found"

--
Take care,

Jonathan
-------------------
LITTLE WORKS STUDIO
http://www.LittleWorksStudio.com

Sherman Pendley

06-17-2008, 02:48

Lars Eighner <usenet@larseighner.com> writes:

> In our last episode, <1194172361.049047.57070@d55g2000hsg.googlegroups.c om>,
> the lovely and talented 1001 Webs broadcast on
> comp.infosystems.www.authoring.html:
>
>> W3 recommends the use of CSS for *presentation*
>> and XHTML for content,
>> Please, correct me if i'm wrong.
>
> You're wrong. That XHTML is more recent does not mean that it is more
> highly recommended than HTML 4.01.

Nor does it mean that HTML development has stopped. The W3C has openly stated
that inadequate browser support makes widespread adoption of XHTML problematic,
and revived the HTML Working Group back in March 2007.

<http://www.w3.org/html/wg/>

The goals of XHTML were worthwhile, and maybe if MS had cooperated with proper
support for it in IE, the results would have been different.

As it stands though, with IE's only "support" for XHTML being the fact that its
HTML parser can handle the extra slashes without choking too badly, XHTML has to
be regarded as an experiment that hasn't yet proven successful.

sherm--

--
Web Hosting by West Virginians, for West Virginians: http://wv-www.net
Cocoa programming in Perl: http://camelbones.sourceforge.net

Sherman Pendley

06-17-2008, 02:48

1001 Webs <1001webs@gmail.com> writes:

> The point I was trying to make (rather the question I was putting
> forward) was whether we should be embracing the new standards.

As far as browser support makes it practical to do so, yes.

But, I think it's important to understand that what the W3C issues
are not standards in the traditional sense - they're proposals that
may be ratified as standards at some future time.

Also, traditional internet standards are documents that describe
what applications have already implemented, so that new applications
will be able to communicate with them.

By contrast, W3C proposals are forward-looking, attempting to chart
a direction for future development. Browser makers don't necessarily
follow the chart closely, or in some cases at all.

> Bear in mind that CSS rules that apply to HTML, apply only to
> documents that are delivered as text/html, but not to XHTML.

That's incorrect. CSS works the same with either HTML or XHTML.

The problem with XHTML is that IE doesn't actually support it. IE
will display it if you deliver it as text/html, but if you do that,
IE parses it as HTML, ignoring the doctype declaration and relying
on its HTML parser's error-handling to sort out the non-HTML slashes,
namespace declarations, and such.

In theory, Microsoft is just another member of the W3C, whose vote
counts no heavier than any other member's. In practice, with 80% of
web surfers using IE, MS can veto any proposal by simply refusing to
implement it in IE, and that's what effectively happened to XHTML.

sherm--

--
Web Hosting by West Virginians, for West Virginians: http://wv-www.net
Cocoa programming in Perl: http://camelbones.sourceforge.net

Sherman Pendley

06-17-2008, 02:48

1001 Webs <1001webs@gmail.com> writes:

> And finally, I declare this thread officially closed.

You declare that, do you? Who died and made you King of Usenet?

sherm--

--
Web Hosting by West Virginians, for West Virginians: http://wv-www.net
Cocoa programming in Perl: http://camelbones.sourceforge.net

dorayme

06-17-2008, 02:48

In article <4uCdnaAAs5pvqLDanZ2dnUVZ_qXinZ2d@comcast.com>,
Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> wrote:

> dorayme wrote:
> > In article <nIadnR_KOZMCgLDanZ2dnUVZ_v2pnZ2d@comcast.com>,
> > Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> wrote:
> >
> >> Tables cannot really be
> >> fluid.
> >
> > You have said this twice now but have not indicated what you
> > mean. A table of tabular data can be very fluid or it can be not
> > very fluid (because of poor design and the use of fixed widths
> > etc). So what does it mean to say "cannot be really fluid"?
> >
>
> Let's see you wrap data in a table around a picture, for instance.

Data? Around a picture? In a table? What will it prove to show
text flowing around a pic in a table cell? If I can show you a
table with a cell that has a pic in it with text flowing around
it, will you then give up saying that "tables cannot really be
fluid"? Are you just going to use the word "really" as a licence
never to revise your statement and just keep hinting at its truth
instead of enlarging on it so that what *you* mean is clearer?

Just for the record, I do not think it is a good idea in general
these days to be using tables for making new pages (using them
for tabular data is another matter of course).

--
dorayme

Bergamot

06-17-2008, 02:48

1001 Webs wrote:
> On Nov 3, 10:49 pm, Bergamot <berga...@visi.com> wrote:
>>
>> instead of doing some learning on your
>> own to improve your own understanding, you decide to waste people's time
>> with the tired 'tables vs css' drivel.
>
> The poster just above you would surely disagree

See http://improve-usenet.org/

> Which speaks a lot of both your ability to screen Newsgroups and to
> understand the needs of today's web authoring.

LOL. That is indeed funny. The "today's web authoring" you seem to be
talking about is many years old. Where have you been all this time?

> In that sense I am long way before you.

You presume much, I think.

> Look around just a little and you'll find out for yourself. It's worth
> the effort, believe me.

What makes you think I'm as green as you are? Believe me, I'm not.

--
Berg

Jerry Stuckle

06-17-2008, 02:48

dorayme wrote:
> In article <4uCdnaAAs5pvqLDanZ2dnUVZ_qXinZ2d@comcast.com>,
> Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> wrote:
>
>> dorayme wrote:
>>> In article <nIadnR_KOZMCgLDanZ2dnUVZ_v2pnZ2d@comcast.com>,
>>> Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Tables cannot really be
>>>> fluid.
>>> You have said this twice now but have not indicated what you
>>> mean. A table of tabular data can be very fluid or it can be not
>>> very fluid (because of poor design and the use of fixed widths
>>> etc). So what does it mean to say "cannot be really fluid"?
>>>
>> Let's see you wrap data in a table around a picture, for instance.
>
> Data? Around a picture? In a table? What will it prove to show
> text flowing around a pic in a table cell? If I can show you a
> table with a cell that has a pic in it with text flowing around
> it, will you then give up saying that "tables cannot really be
> fluid"? Are you just going to use the word "really" as a licence
> never to revise your statement and just keep hinting at its truth
> instead of enlarging on it so that what *you* mean is clearer?
>
> Just for the record, I do not think it is a good idea in general
> these days to be using tables for making new pages (using them
> for tabular data is another matter of course).
>

Just for the record - you asked for an example. I gave you one. There
are dozens more.

--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.
jstucklex@attglobal.net
==================

dorayme

06-17-2008, 02:48

In article <hf2dnY16g4LT_LPanZ2dnUVZ_jadnZ2d@comcast.com>,
Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> wrote:

> dorayme wrote:
> > In article <4uCdnaAAs5pvqLDanZ2dnUVZ_qXinZ2d@comcast.com>,
> > Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> wrote:
> >
> >> dorayme wrote:
> >>> In article <nIadnR_KOZMCgLDanZ2dnUVZ_v2pnZ2d@comcast.com>,
> >>> Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> Tables cannot really be
> >>>> fluid.
> >>> You have said this twice now but have not indicated what you
> >>> mean. A table of tabular data can be very fluid or it can be not
> >>> very fluid (because of poor design and the use of fixed widths
> >>> etc). So what does it mean to say "cannot be really fluid"?
> >>>
> >> Let's see you wrap data in a table around a picture, for instance.
> >
> > Data? Around a picture? In a table? What will it prove to show
> > text flowing around a pic in a table cell? If I can show you a
> > table with a cell that has a pic in it with text flowing around
> > it, will you then give up saying that "tables cannot really be
> > fluid"? Are you just going to use the word "really" as a licence
> > never to revise your statement and just keep hinting at its truth
> > instead of enlarging on it so that what *you* mean is clearer?
> >
> > Just for the record, I do not think it is a good idea in general
> > these days to be using tables for making new pages (using them
> > for tabular data is another matter of course).
> >
>
> Just for the record - you asked for an example. I gave you one. There
> are dozens more.

First, I did not ask 'for an example'. Second, where is the
example you claim to have given? And what exactly is it an
example of? And you have not answered the question I asked you
about what it would prove if *I* gave *you* a table with a cell
that had a picture with text wrapped around.

Look, I am not interested if you are merely saying something that
is somehow supposed to be a placeholder for all the pros of
semantic markup and good css styling. Even if you could rub a few
words together and do this, you would be preaching to the
converted. You made a claim that tables cannot be "really fluid"
and I was merely asking what *you* meant by this. I can think of
a few meanings, some of which support your claim and some not.

--
dorayme

Jerry Stuckle

06-17-2008, 02:48

dorayme wrote:
> In article <hf2dnY16g4LT_LPanZ2dnUVZ_jadnZ2d@comcast.com>,
> Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> wrote:
>
>> dorayme wrote:
>>> In article <4uCdnaAAs5pvqLDanZ2dnUVZ_qXinZ2d@comcast.com>,
>>> Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> dorayme wrote:
>>>>> In article <nIadnR_KOZMCgLDanZ2dnUVZ_v2pnZ2d@comcast.com>,
>>>>> Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Tables cannot really be
>>>>>> fluid.
>>>>> You have said this twice now but have not indicated what you
>>>>> mean. A table of tabular data can be very fluid or it can be not
>>>>> very fluid (because of poor design and the use of fixed widths
>>>>> etc). So what does it mean to say "cannot be really fluid"?
>>>>>
>>>> Let's see you wrap data in a table around a picture, for instance.
>>> Data? Around a picture? In a table? What will it prove to show
>>> text flowing around a pic in a table cell? If I can show you a
>>> table with a cell that has a pic in it with text flowing around
>>> it, will you then give up saying that "tables cannot really be
>>> fluid"? Are you just going to use the word "really" as a licence
>>> never to revise your statement and just keep hinting at its truth
>>> instead of enlarging on it so that what *you* mean is clearer?
>>>
>>> Just for the record, I do not think it is a good idea in general
>>> these days to be using tables for making new pages (using them
>>> for tabular data is another matter of course).
>>>
>> Just for the record - you asked for an example. I gave you one. There
>> are dozens more.
>
> First, I did not ask 'for an example'. Second, where is the
> example you claim to have given? And what exactly is it an
> example of? And you have not answered the question I asked you
> about what it would prove if *I* gave *you* a table with a cell
> that had a picture with text wrapped around.
>
> Look, I am not interested if you are merely saying something that
> is somehow supposed to be a placeholder for all the pros of
> semantic markup and good css styling. Even if you could rub a few
> words together and do this, you would be preaching to the
> converted. You made a claim that tables cannot be "really fluid"
> and I was merely asking what *you* meant by this. I can think of
> a few meanings, some of which support your claim and some not.
>

You wanted to know what I mean when I say a table can't be fluid. I
gave you an example.

Let's see you wrap text around am image using tables and NO CSS. The
page must adjust to any reasonably sized window and text size (i.e. not
72 point font as the default, and not a 20x20 px window), flowing as
necessary to fill the window and continue to wrap around the picture.

Such is simple in CSS.

--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.
jstucklex@attglobal.net
==================

dorayme

06-17-2008, 02:48

In article <8bGdnRMn5MqA8bPanZ2dnUVZ_jmdnZ2d@comcast.com>,
Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> wrote:

> You wanted to know what I mean when I say a table can't be fluid. I
> gave you an example.

Look, it seems that we are on different wavelengths here. In my
understanding, an example of something that cannot exist cannot
be given. So why don't you be a little more precise in your words
and thoughts. It does no good endlessly repeating your same very
few words.

I have in mind that you may have some misconceptions, that you
are rolling a whole lot of concepts into the idea of fluid and it
is you who should be sorting all this out, considering it is you
who is making the big claim. Table based layout can easily be
user friendly in respect to using the size of the screen. A
simple example is a 100% wide table that has 2 columns, one that
is enough to hold a navigation list, the other for all the
content. That is a table layout. It is plenty fluid in many
senses of the word. Naturally, if you are meaning that a table
layout cannot involve css or em based or % dimensioning and has
to involve tables within tables and whatever then you are putting
up a straw man. That discussion is long dead.

--
dorayme

Jonathan N. Little

06-17-2008, 02:48

Sherman Pendley wrote:
> 1001 Webs <1001webs@gmail.com> writes:
>
>> And finally, I declare this thread officially closed.
>
> You declare that, do you? Who died and made you King of Usenet?

GG attracts all kinds, even the delusional.

--
Take care,

Jonathan
-------------------
LITTLE WORKS STUDIO
http://www.LittleWorksStudio.com

Jerry Stuckle

06-17-2008, 02:48

dorayme wrote:
> In article <8bGdnRMn5MqA8bPanZ2dnUVZ_jmdnZ2d@comcast.com>,
> Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> wrote:
>
>> You wanted to know what I mean when I say a table can't be fluid. I
>> gave you an example.
>
> Look, it seems that we are on different wavelengths here. In my
> understanding, an example of something that cannot exist cannot
> be given. So why don't you be a little more precise in your words
> and thoughts. It does no good endlessly repeating your same very
> few words.
>

No, I gave you an example of a fluid design which can be easily
accomplished in CSS, but not with tables.

> I have in mind that you may have some misconceptions, that you
> are rolling a whole lot of concepts into the idea of fluid and it
> is you who should be sorting all this out, considering it is you
> who is making the big claim. Table based layout can easily be
> user friendly in respect to using the size of the screen. A
> simple example is a 100% wide table that has 2 columns, one that
> is enough to hold a navigation list, the other for all the
> content. That is a table layout. It is plenty fluid in many
> senses of the word. Naturally, if you are meaning that a table
> layout cannot involve css or em based or % dimensioning and has
> to involve tables within tables and whatever then you are putting
> up a straw man. That discussion is long dead.
>

No, I'm not. Fluid design is much more than setting a table to 100%
width of the window. That concept is from the 90's.

Nowadays fluid layouts can adjust to text size, window size. Content
isn't limited to just the two columns you mention - in fact, content can
wrap around the navigation area. Images in the window can have text
wrapped around them. And a whole bunch more that goes into a true fluid
design.

--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.
jstucklex@attglobal.net
==================

dorayme

06-17-2008, 02:48

In article <_Nydne-56YkiCbPanZ2dnUVZ_hSdnZ2d@comcast.com>,
Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> wrote:

> dorayme wrote:
> > In article <8bGdnRMn5MqA8bPanZ2dnUVZ_jmdnZ2d@comcast.com>,
> > Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> wrote:
> >
> >> You wanted to know what I mean when I say a table can't be fluid. I
> >> gave you an example.
> >
> > Look, it seems that we are on different wavelengths here. In my
> > understanding, an example of something that cannot exist cannot
> > be given. So why don't you be a little more precise in your words
> > and thoughts. It does no good endlessly repeating your same very
> > few words.
> >
>
> No, I gave you an example of a fluid design which can be easily
> accomplished in CSS, but not with tables.
>

You *gave* no such thing. You asked me to wrap data around a
picture (whatever that means and it could mean a whole bunch of
things). That is not giving a fluid design.

> > I have in mind that you may have some misconceptions, that you
> > are rolling a whole lot of concepts into the idea of fluid and it
> > is you who should be sorting all this out, considering it is you
> > who is making the big claim. Table based layout can easily be
> > user friendly in respect to using the size of the screen. A
> > simple example is a 100% wide table that has 2 columns, one that
> > is enough to hold a navigation list, the other for all the
> > content. That is a table layout. It is plenty fluid in many
> > senses of the word. Naturally, if you are meaning that a table
> > layout cannot involve css or em based or % dimensioning and has
> > to involve tables within tables and whatever then you are putting
> > up a straw man. That discussion is long dead.
> >
>
> No, I'm not.

No you are not what?

>Fluid design is much more than setting a table to 100%
> width of the window. That concept is from the 90's.
>

And who suggested any such thing? Not me.

> Nowadays fluid layouts can adjust to text size, window size. Content
> isn't limited to just the two columns you mention - in fact, content can
> wrap around the navigation area. Images in the window can have text
> wrapped around them. And a whole bunch more that goes into a true fluid
> design.

You are now just babbling trendy talk and being totally
imprecise.

--
dorayme

Jerry Stuckle

06-17-2008, 02:48

dorayme wrote:
> In article <_Nydne-56YkiCbPanZ2dnUVZ_hSdnZ2d@comcast.com>,
> Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> wrote:
>
>> dorayme wrote:
>>> In article <8bGdnRMn5MqA8bPanZ2dnUVZ_jmdnZ2d@comcast.com>,
>>> Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> You wanted to know what I mean when I say a table can't be fluid. I
>>>> gave you an example.
>>> Look, it seems that we are on different wavelengths here. In my
>>> understanding, an example of something that cannot exist cannot
>>> be given. So why don't you be a little more precise in your words
>>> and thoughts. It does no good endlessly repeating your same very
>>> few words.
>>>
>> No, I gave you an example of a fluid design which can be easily
>> accomplished in CSS, but not with tables.
>>
>
> You *gave* no such thing. You asked me to wrap data around a
> picture (whatever that means and it could mean a whole bunch of
> things). That is not giving a fluid design.
>
>
>>> I have in mind that you may have some misconceptions, that you
>>> are rolling a whole lot of concepts into the idea of fluid and it
>>> is you who should be sorting all this out, considering it is you
>>> who is making the big claim. Table based layout can easily be
>>> user friendly in respect to using the size of the screen. A
>>> simple example is a 100% wide table that has 2 columns, one that
>>> is enough to hold a navigation list, the other for all the
>>> content. That is a table layout. It is plenty fluid in many
>>> senses of the word. Naturally, if you are meaning that a table
>>> layout cannot involve css or em based or % dimensioning and has
>>> to involve tables within tables and whatever then you are putting
>>> up a straw man. That discussion is long dead.
>>>
>> No, I'm not.
>
> No you are not what?
>
>
>> Fluid design is much more than setting a table to 100%
>> width of the window. That concept is from the 90's.
>>
>
> And who suggested any such thing? Not me.
>
>> Nowadays fluid layouts can adjust to text size, window size. Content
>> isn't limited to just the two columns you mention - in fact, content can
>> wrap around the navigation area. Images in the window can have text
>> wrapped around them. And a whole bunch more that goes into a true fluid
>> design.
>
> You are now just babbling trendy talk and being totally
> imprecise.
>

Nope, you're just trying to change the subject, turning it away from
questions you can't answer. You try to evade the challenge rather than
admit you can't do it with your precious tables.

I've finally come to the conclusion you're just a stoopid troll.

<plonk>

--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.
jstucklex@attglobal.net
==================

David Dorward

06-17-2008, 02:48

On Nov 4, 5:19 pm, Bone Ur <monstersquas...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> Did you ever notice that most of what the w3c recommends is a restriction
> rather than an enhancement? Such policies are supposed to make things work
> better, which they may do about half the time - maybe. From what I recall,
> one cannot use the javascript method "document.write" in xhtml

That is just due to the way browsers have implemented it, not a
requirement of the specification.

> and you have to put something like [[CDATA && ]] (?) near the element terminators.

XML is simpler than SGML and doesn't have a means of saying "Ignore <
and & characters inside <foo> elments". This means XML can be parsed
without needing access to a DTD, and that XML parsers can be smaller
and faster than SGML parsers.

> Another of my favorites is the requirement of slash terminators for
> unclosed elements.

Ditto. You don't need a DTD to find out if the element is finished or
not.

(For all the above, read "DTD" as "DTD or another means of knowing the
specific XML dialect")

--
David Dorward
http://dorward.me.uk/
http://blog.dorward.me.uk/

Travis Newbury

06-17-2008, 02:48

On Nov 3, 8:16 pm, Jerry Stuckle <jstuck...@attglobal.net> wrote:
> That's not the point. CSS CAN be fluid design. Tables cannot really be
> fluid.

So what, sites do not have to be fluid.

> Read what I said. Then respond with some intelligence.
> If it doesn't look "exactly the same on 100% of the visitors", it isn't
> exactly the same, is it?

100% the same is irrelevant in the big picture. That is my point.

> >> I'd prefer to have
> >> fluid designs which adjust to the size of the user's window.
> > And the key to your statement is "I'd prefer...."
> Not at all. Any *competent* webmaster would be able to do such.

In your opinion.

> > I prefer fixed width. So why is what I prefer wrong, and what you
> > prefer right?
> So do most graphic designers I know. And that's fine for a piece of
> paper. But it's shows complete incompetence on the web, which is a
> fluid layout.

In your opinion...

> > It isn't. It is a preference. Neither of us is right or wrong.
> It is a lack of competence on your part.

Funny, I see it the opposite.

Travis Newbury

06-17-2008, 02:48

On Nov 4, 7:17 pm, Jerry Stuckle <jstuck...@attglobal.net> wrote:
> Just for the record - you asked for an example. I gave you one. There
> are dozens more.

Oh are you going to do that "Look for it your self" thing again?

Jerry Stuckle

06-17-2008, 02:48

Travis Newbury wrote:
> On Nov 3, 8:16 pm, Jerry Stuckle <jstuck...@attglobal.net> wrote:
>> That's not the point. CSS CAN be fluid design. Tables cannot really be
>> fluid.
>
> So what, sites do not have to be fluid.
>
>> Read what I said. Then respond with some intelligence.
>> If it doesn't look "exactly the same on 100% of the visitors", it isn't
>> exactly the same, is it?
>
> 100% the same is irrelevant in the big picture. That is my point.
>
>>>> I'd prefer to have
>>>> fluid designs which adjust to the size of the user's window.
>>> And the key to your statement is "I'd prefer...."
>> Not at all. Any *competent* webmaster would be able to do such.
>
> In your opinion.
>
>>> I prefer fixed width. So why is what I prefer wrong, and what you
>>> prefer right?
>> So do most graphic designers I know. And that's fine for a piece of
>> paper. But it's shows complete incompetence on the web, which is a
>> fluid layout.
>
> In your opinion...
>
>>> It isn't. It is a preference. Neither of us is right or wrong.
>> It is a lack of competence on your part.
>
> Funny, I see it the opposite.
>
>

Yep, and obviously you're completely incompetent. You've already proven
that multiple times.

No go troll someplace else.

--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.
jstucklex@attglobal.net
==================

Travis Newbury

06-17-2008, 02:48

On Nov 4, 8:51 pm, dorayme <doraymeRidT...@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
> > You wanted to know what I mean when I say a table can't be fluid. I
> > gave you an example.
> Look, it seems that we are on different wavelengths here.

I believe Jerry just likes to pick fights. You are wasting your time
here Jerry is a closed minded buffoon. He fears what he does not
understand

Travis Newbury

06-17-2008, 02:48

On Nov 4, 8:03 pm, Jerry Stuckle <jstuck...@attglobal.net> wrote:
> You wanted to know what I mean when I say a table can't be fluid. I
> gave you an example.
> Let's see you wrap text around am image using tables and NO CSS.

Why no CSS? CSS and tables are not mutually exclusive. Only a buffoon
would think otherwise...

Travis Newbury

06-17-2008, 02:48

On Nov 4, 10:57 pm, Jerry Stuckle <jstuck...@attglobal.net> wrote:
> No, I'm not. Fluid design is much more than setting a table to 100%
> width of the window. That concept is from the 90's.

Can you supply a URL to a site where you think is a great example if a
fluid design site?

Travis Newbury

06-17-2008, 02:48

On Nov 4, 11:32 pm, Jerry Stuckle <jstuck...@attglobal.net> wrote:
> Nope, you're just trying to change the subject, turning it away from
> questions you can't answer.

OH GOD!!!! Another mystery question.... It's the "The ghost who
never lies..." (Family Guy fans will understand that...)

> I've finally come to the conclusion you're just a stoopid troll.
> <plonk>

This is a good thing...

Travis Newbury

06-17-2008, 02:48

On Nov 5, 6:11 am, Jerry Stuckle <jstuck...@attglobal.net> wrote:
> > Funny, I see it the opposite.
> Yep, and obviously you're completely incompetent. You've already proven
> that multiple times.
> No go troll someplace else.

Plonk me PLEASE for the love of God PLONK ME!!!!

Jerry Stuckle

06-17-2008, 02:48

Jerry Stuckle

06-17-2008, 02:48

Travis Newbury wrote:
> On Nov 5, 6:11 am, Jerry Stuckle <jstuck...@attglobal.net> wrote:
>>> Funny, I see it the opposite.
>> Yep, and obviously you're completely incompetent. You've already proven
>> that multiple times.
>> No go troll someplace else.
>
> Plonk me PLEASE for the love of God PLONK ME!!!!
>
>

It's funny. Incompetent asses like you can add nothing to the
conversation. Just like you haven't.

Just shows how big of a troll you are.

And no, I don't like to pick fights. I just don't put up with trolls,
assholes and idiots. And you match all three.

And you're even incompetent when you're a troll, asshole and idiot!

ROFLMAO!

--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.
jstucklex@attglobal.net
==================

Travis Newbury

06-17-2008, 02:48

On Nov 5, 6:38 am, Jerry Stuckle <jstuck...@attglobal.net> wrote:
> > Plonk me PLEASE for the love of God PLONK ME!!!!
> It's funny. Incompetent asses like you can add nothing to the
> conversation. Just like you haven't.

Then stop replying to me

> Just shows how big of a troll you are.

Then stop replying to me

> And no, I don't like to pick fights. I just don't put up with trolls,
> assholes and idiots. And you match all three.

Then stop replying to me

> And you're even incompetent when you're a troll, asshole and idiot!

Then stop replying to me

Jerry Stuckle

06-17-2008, 02:48

Travis Newbury wrote:
> On Nov 5, 6:38 am, Jerry Stuckle <jstuck...@attglobal.net> wrote:
>>> Plonk me PLEASE for the love of God PLONK ME!!!!
>> It's funny. Incompetent asses like you can add nothing to the
>> conversation. Just like you haven't.
>
> Then stop replying to me
>
>> Just shows how big of a troll you are.
>
> Then stop replying to me
>
>> And no, I don't like to pick fights. I just don't put up with trolls,
>> assholes and idiots. And you match all three.
>
> Then stop replying to me
>
>> And you're even incompetent when you're a troll, asshole and idiot!
>
> Then stop replying to me
>
>
>

Hey, you're the asshole who had to show how big a fool you are is by
opening your big yap and allowing your lack of intelligence to spill
out! ROFLMAO!

--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.
jstucklex@attglobal.net
==================

Travis Newbury

06-17-2008, 02:48

On Nov 5, 6:46 am, Jerry Stuckle <jstuck...@attglobal.net> wrote:
> Hey, you're the asshole who had to show how big a fool you are is by
> opening your big yap and allowing your lack of intelligence to spill
> out! ROFLMAO!

You just can't do it can you Jerry?

06-17-2008, 02:48

"Jerry Stuckle" <jstucklex@attglobal.net> wrote in message
news:V46dnT8OiJQmnbLanZ2dnUVZ_qninZ2d@comcast.com. ..

> Just shows how big of a troll you are.

The only troll I see here is you Stuckle.

Secret Agent X

06-17-2008, 02:48

"rf" <rf@invalid.com> wrote:

>"Jerry Stuckle" <jstucklex@attglobal.net> wrote in message
>news:V46dnT8OiJQmnbLanZ2dnUVZ_qninZ2d@comcast.com. ..
>
>> Just shows how big of a troll you are.
>
>The only troll I see here is you Stuckle.
>

Do trolls utilitise every opportunity to present the URL of their web
site? Or is there another popular name for such people...

Perhaps, like CSS and tables, the two are not mutually exclusive....

X

Jerry Stuckle

06-17-2008, 02:48

Travis Newbury wrote:
> On Nov 5, 6:46 am, Jerry Stuckle <jstuck...@attglobal.net> wrote:
>> Hey, you're the asshole who had to show how big a fool you are is by
>> opening your big yap and allowing your lack of intelligence to spill
>> out! ROFLMAO!
>
> You just can't do it can you Jerry?
>
>

ROFLMAO!

You're the troll who jumped into this conversation with nothing of use
to say.

Just like you never have anything constructive to add to a conversation.

--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.
jstucklex@attglobal.net
==================

Jerry Stuckle

06-17-2008, 02:48

rf wrote:
> "Jerry Stuckle" <jstucklex@attglobal.net> wrote in message
> news:V46dnT8OiJQmnbLanZ2dnUVZ_qninZ2d@comcast.com. ..
>
>> Just shows how big of a troll you are.
>
> The only troll I see here is you Stuckle.
>
>
>

Ah, the trolls are coming out of the woodwork. Here's another one who's
too stoopid to have anything constructive to add to a conversation!

ROFLMAO!

--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.
jstucklex@attglobal.net
==================

Travis Newbury

06-17-2008, 02:48

On Nov 5, 7:55 am, Jerry Stuckle <jstuck...@attglobal.net> wrote:
> >> Hey, you're the asshole who had to show how big a fool you are is by
> >> opening your big yap and allowing your lack of intelligence to spill
> >> out! ROFLMAO!
> > You just can't do it can you Jerry?
> Just like you never have anything constructive to add to a conversation.

Come on Jerry, plonk me. I want to plonk me, but you can't. You
can't because you are a loser. You have nothing to offer her so just
go away.

Prove me wrong and plonk me.

pussy

Jerry Stuckle

06-17-2008, 02:48

Travis Newbury wrote:
> On Nov 5, 7:55 am, Jerry Stuckle <jstuck...@attglobal.net> wrote:
>>>> Hey, you're the asshole who had to show how big a fool you are is by
>>>> opening your big yap and allowing your lack of intelligence to spill
>>>> out! ROFLMAO!
>>> You just can't do it can you Jerry?
>> Just like you never have anything constructive to add to a conversation.
>
> Come on Jerry, plonk me. I want to plonk me, but you can't. You
> can't because you are a loser. You have nothing to offer her so just
> go away.
>
> Prove me wrong and plonk me.
>
> pussy
>
>

Spoken like the true troll you are! ROFLMAO!

This is just what I need to lighten my Monday!

--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.
jstucklex@attglobal.net
==================

mbstevens

06-17-2008, 02:48

dorayme wrote:

>
> You are now just babbling trendy talk and being totally
> imprecise.
Stuckle wrote:
>> <plonk>

Well, now you've gone and done it, haven't you?
<Plonk>ed by Luigi Donatello Aserio two years ago,
and now, just as your wounds have started to heal,
<plonk>ed by Jerry.

If you don't mind my asking a personal question,
which of these mucho machos gives better <plonk>?
:)

Travis Newbury

06-17-2008, 02:48

On Nov 5, 9:53 am, mbstevens <NOXwebmast...@xmbstevensx.com> wrote:
> If you don't mind my asking a personal question,
> which of these mucho machos gives better <plonk>?
> :)

LOL!!!!

Travis Newbury

06-17-2008, 02:48

On Nov 5, 9:26 am, Jerry Stuckle <jstuck...@attglobal.net> wrote:
> > Prove me wrong and plonk me.
> Spoken like the true troll you are! ROFLMAO!
> This is just what I need to lighten my Monday!

bye bye now Jerry. If google let me plonk someone I would. You bore
me

Kevin

06-17-2008, 02:48

On Nov 4, 6:16 pm, dorayme <doraymeRidT...@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
> In article <4uCdnaAAs5pvqLDanZ2dnUVZ_qXin...@comcast.com>,
> Jerry Stuckle <jstuck...@attglobal.net> wrote:
>
> > dorayme wrote:
> > > In article <nIadnR_KOZMCgLDanZ2dnUVZ_v2pn...@comcast.com>,
> > > Jerry Stuckle <jstuck...@attglobal.net> wrote:
>
> > >> Tables cannot really be
> > >> fluid.
>
> > > You have said this twice now but have not indicated what you
> > > mean. A table of tabular data can be very fluid or it can be not
> > > very fluid (because of poor design and the use of fixed widths
> > > etc). So what does it mean to say "cannot be really fluid"?
>
> > Let's see you wrap data in a table around a picture, for instance.
>
> Data? Around a picture? In a table? What will it prove to show
> text flowing around a pic in a table cell? If I can show you a
> table with a cell that has a pic in it with text flowing around
> it, will you then give up saying that "tables cannot really be
> fluid"? Are you just going to use the word "really" as a licence
> never to revise your statement and just keep hinting at its truth
> instead of enlarging on it so that what *you* mean is clearer?
>
> Just for the record, I do not think it is a good idea in general
> these days to be using tables for making new pages (using them
> for tabular data is another matter of course).
>
> --
> dorayme

In response to the original posters questions and thoughts I believe
that it is in fact not the death of HTML as the W3C has just finished
gatharing a group of people together to work on a new update above the
HTML 4.01 that is the latest standard release of it. However, One of
the key engineers of Microsoft Internet Explorer is in a lead position
on that project. That could be a very bad thing considering that
Microsoft has publicly stated that their browser will Never Support
the mime type of application-xml . That being said Internet Explorer
will not support XHTML in the way it was created to be used it will
only change the mime type over to text/html which removes any of the
xml abilities from it.

As far as tables go you should still be using tables in your HTML
however only for tabular data or displaying of a chart or table and
not for other positioning. There is no reason to nest tables any
longer nor is there a reason to use tables to position images or even
blocks of text in appealing ways on a web page. Many of the elements
and tags of the old days are now deprecated and should no longer be
used in HTML however they have replacements in CSS.

I think overall it is a pretty good thing personally. Finally after
CSS has been around over 10 years it is starting to come of age and be
recognized as well as improving the web overall. You can make
navigation bars in CSS without images that function faster and do not
contain images yet appear to have a rollover effect that is faster
then JavaScript is.

I also believe it will eventually reduce the number of people out
there that just buy FrontPage and call themselves web designers
without actually knowing any code or programming. It is people of that
nature that have reduced the pay in this industry to a incredibly low
amount of money. Think about it most web designers are selling their
services for less then people will pay their auto mechanic to fix
their car. Most small business owners will try to build their web
sites on their own or higher a High school kid at minimum wage or less
to build them something on the web. Even if the Web designer has a
much higher education level then their auto mechanic.

As far as markup languages go both HTML and XHTML are here to stay.
However they will have to coexist with CSS from now on.

Ed Jensen

06-17-2008, 02:48

In alt.html Red E. Kilowatt <redkilowattREMOVE@aww-faq.org> wrote:
> Simple for you, maybe. I find CSS incomprehensible for anything beyond
> specifying fonts and backgrounds, like trying to position boxes within
> an overall layout.
>
> And honestly, I don't want to learn, because as far as I'm concerned
> tables work fine. Granted, improving the text to mark-up ratio on my
> sites would probably help their search engine ranking slightly, but I'd
> rather send my time figuring out new ways to make money.

Speaking from the viewpoint of a USER of the web rather than from the
viewpoint of a DEVELOPER of web sites:

I prefer web sites built with table-based layouts. I have trouble
reading the tiny, tiny fonts that are all the rage on the web these
days. I almost always increase the font size a step or two.

Table-based layouts seem to handle my font size increases without any
problems (for the most part).

CSS-based layouts seem to have trouble handling my font size
increases. This usually results in sections overlapping other
sections and, in many cases, some sections being completely obscured.
Sometimes, sections even vanish entirely, apparently being rendered
into some kind of void.

Right about now, I'm sure Ivory Tower types are blaming this on web
developers writing bad CSS or something. But the fact of the matter
is, if a tool makes it hard to do things right, then the tool should
probably be considered fundamentally broken.

As a result, I tend to consider CSS fundamentally broken for the task
of layout.

Good Man

06-17-2008, 02:49

1001 Webs <1001webs@gmail.com> wrote in
news:1194191454.486100.17950@19g2000hsx.googlegrou ps.com:

> The point I was trying to make (rather the question I was putting
> forward) was whether we should be embracing the new standards.
> Bear in mind that CSS rules that apply to HTML, apply only to
> documents that are delivered as text/html, but not to XHTML.
> So we'd better wait until they sort everything out, most likely with
> the upcoming XHTML2.
> That's the final conclusion.

Enjoy your brief career in the web design/app business.

Bone Ur

06-17-2008, 02:49

Well bust mah britches and call me cheeky, on Mon, 05 Nov 2007 10:08:18
GMT David Dorward scribed:

> On Nov 4, 5:19 pm, Bone Ur <monstersquas...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> Did you ever notice that most of what the w3c recommends is a
>> restriction rather than an enhancement? Such policies are supposed
>> to make things work better, which they may do about half the time -
>> maybe. From what I recall, one cannot use the javascript method
>> "document.write" in xhtml
>
> That is just due to the way browsers have implemented it, not a
> requirement of the specification.
>
>> and you have to put something like [[CDATA && ]] (?) near the element
>> terminators.
>
> XML is simpler than SGML and doesn't have a means of saying "Ignore <
> and & characters inside <foo> elments". This means XML can be parsed
> without needing access to a DTD, and that XML parsers can be smaller
> and faster than SGML parsers.
>
>> Another of my favorites is the requirement of slash terminators for
>> unclosed elements.
>
> Ditto. You don't need a DTD to find out if the element is finished or
> not.
>
> (For all the above, read "DTD" as "DTD or another means of knowing the
> specific XML dialect")

Well, I didn't know some of that, particularly that XML can be parsed
without accessing a dtd. But xhtml "needs" a dtd, or is it just because
of the compatibility issues with appendix c et al? And if in the context
of what you said there's a meaningful difference between XML and xhtml,
the logical question is can SGML (not html) be parsed without a dtd also?

Anyway, I'm still not impressed. What's wrong with making <img
src="my.png">Look at me.</img> the "right way to do it" and getting rid
of the stupid "alt" attribute? -Or rework it another way; I'm not
proposing normative standards here, only a philosophy of solution. The
parser is just one aspect of hypertext rendering and I truly believe the
whole schlemeil needs to be re-evaluated on the basis of current
empirical experience and revised in a manner which seems to at least
partially elude the w3c's "citadel of knowledge". When automobiles were
first constructed and wise men gleaned a time that horses would be
replaced, they didn't make the vehicles consume hay and expel road apples
every couple of miles, did they? That's kind of the picture I get when I
contemplate markup "progress". More than one thing needs to be changed,
that's for sure, and if compatibility is the issue which is inhibiting
innovation, the solution is obviously to go another way. Well, it's
obvious to me.

--
Bone Ur
Cavemen have formidable pheromones.

1001 Webs

06-17-2008, 02:49

On Nov 5, 2:59 pm, Travis Newbury <TravisNewb...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Nov 5, 7:55 am, Jerry Stuckle <jstuck...@attglobal.net> wrote:
>
> > >> Hey, you're the asshole who had to show how big a fool you are is by
> > >> opening your big yap and allowing your lack of intelligence to spill
> > >> out! ROFLMAO!
> > > You just can't do it can you Jerry?
> > Just like you never have anything constructive to add to a conversation.
>
> Come on Jerry, plonk me. I want to plonk me, but you can't. You
> can't because you are a loser. You have nothing to offer her
Excuse me for the interruption here, but I'm kind of intrigued ...

You keep talking about *her", just like rc (a.k.a. relentless crap)
constantly does.
Who is *She*?
Some kind of CSS Goddess?
Is *she* pretty?
And fluid?
Could I be introduced to *her*?

Thank you.

1001 Webs

06-17-2008, 02:49

On Nov 5, 5:22 pm, Kevin <kevinlen...@lakeareawebs.com> wrote:
> On Nov 4, 6:16 pm, dorayme <doraymeRidT...@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
>
>
>
> > In article <4uCdnaAAs5pvqLDanZ2dnUVZ_qXin...@comcast.com>,
> > Jerry Stuckle <jstuck...@attglobal.net> wrote:
>
> > > dorayme wrote:
> > > > In article <nIadnR_KOZMCgLDanZ2dnUVZ_v2pn...@comcast.com>,
> > > > Jerry Stuckle <jstuck...@attglobal.net> wrote:
>
> > > >> Tables cannot really be
> > > >> fluid.
>
> > > > You have said this twice now but have not indicated what you
> > > > mean. A table of tabular data can be very fluid or it can be not
> > > > very fluid (because of poor design and the use of fixed widths
> > > > etc). So what does it mean to say "cannot be really fluid"?
>
> > > Let's see you wrap data in a table around a picture, for instance.
>
> > Data? Around a picture? In a table? What will it prove to show
> > text flowing around a pic in a table cell? If I can show you a
> > table with a cell that has a pic in it with text flowing around
> > it, will you then give up saying that "tables cannot really be
> > fluid"? Are you just going to use the word "really" as a licence
> > never to revise your statement and just keep hinting at its truth
> > instead of enlarging on it so that what *you* mean is clearer?
>
> > Just for the record, I do not think it is a good idea in general
> > these days to be using tables for making new pages (using them
> > for tabular data is another matter of course).
>
> > --
> > dorayme
>
> In response to the original posters questions and thoughts I believe
> that it is in fact not the death of HTML as the W3C has just finished
> gatharing a group of people together to work on a new update above the
> HTML 4.01 that is the latest standard release of it. However, One of
> the key engineers of Microsoft Internet Explorer is in a lead position
> on that project. That could be a very bad thing considering that
> Microsoft has publicly stated that their browser will Never Support
> the mime type of application-xml . That being said Internet Explorer
> will not support XHTML in the way it was created to be used it will
> only change the mime type over to text/html which removes any of the
> xml abilities from it.
>
> As far as tables go you should still be using tables in your HTML
> however only for tabular data or displaying of a chart or table and
> not for other positioning. There is no reason to nest tables any
> longer nor is there a reason to use tables to position images or even
> blocks of text in appealing ways on a web page. Many of the elements
> and tags of the old days are now deprecated and should no longer be
> used in HTML however they have replacements in CSS.
>
> I think overall it is a pretty good thing personally. Finally after
> CSS has been around over 10 years it is starting to come of age and be
> recognized as well as improving the web overall. You can make
> navigation bars in CSS without images that function faster and do not
> contain images yet appear to have a rollover effect that is faster
> then JavaScript is.
>
> I also believe it will eventually reduce the number of people out
> there that just buy FrontPage and call themselves web designers
> without actually knowing any code or programming. It is people of that
> nature that have reduced the pay in this industry to a incredibly low
> amount of money. Think about it most web designers are selling their
> services for less then people will pay their auto mechanic to fix
> their car. Most small business owners will try to build their web
> sites on their own or higher a High school kid at minimum wage or less
> to build them something on the web. Even if the Web designer has a
> much higher education level then their auto mechanic.
>
> As far as markup languages go both HTML and XHTML are here to stay.
> However they will have to coexist with CSS from now on.
Right on, Kevin.

An oasis of sanity in a desert of gratuitous disqualifications.

Thank You

Jerry Stuckle

06-17-2008, 02:49

Travis Newbury wrote:
> On Nov 5, 9:26 am, Jerry Stuckle <jstuck...@attglobal.net> wrote:
>>> Prove me wrong and plonk me.
>> Spoken like the true troll you are! ROFLMAO!
>> This is just what I need to lighten my Monday!
>
> bye bye now Jerry. If google let me plonk someone I would. You bore
> me
>
>

ROFLMAO! Why don't you get a REAL newsreader!

--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.
jstucklex@attglobal.net
==================

1001 Webs

06-17-2008, 02:49

On Nov 5, 8:52 pm, Bone Ur <monstersquas...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Well bust mah britches and call me cheeky, on Mon, 05 Nov 2007 10:08:18
> GMT David Dorward scribed:
>
>
>
> > On Nov 4, 5:19 pm, Bone Ur <monstersquas...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >> Did you ever notice that most of what the w3c recommends is a
> >> restriction rather than an enhancement? Such policies are supposed
> >> to make things work better, which they may do about half the time -
> >> maybe. From what I recall, one cannot use the javascript method
> >> "document.write" in xhtml
>
> > That is just due to the way browsers have implemented it, not a
> > requirement of the specification.
>
> >> and you have to put something like [[CDATA && ]] (?) near the element
> >> terminators.
>
> > XML is simpler than SGML and doesn't have a means of saying "Ignore <
> > and & characters inside <foo> elments". This means XML can be parsed
> > without needing access to a DTD, and that XML parsers can be smaller
> > and faster than SGML parsers.
>
> >> Another of my favorites is the requirement of slash terminators for
> >> unclosed elements.
>
> > Ditto. You don't need a DTD to find out if the element is finished or
> > not.
>
> > (For all the above, read "DTD" as "DTD or another means of knowing the
> > specific XML dialect")
>
> Well, I didn't know some of that, particularly that XML can be parsed
> without accessing a dtd. But xhtml "needs" a dtd, or is it just because
> of the compatibility issues with appendix c et al? And if in the context
> of what you said there's a meaningful difference between XML and xhtml,
> the logical question is can SGML (not html) be parsed without a dtd also?
>
> Anyway, I'm still not impressed. What's wrong with making <img
> src="my.png">Look at me.</img> the "right way to do it" and getting rid
> of the stupid "alt" attribute?
The <img> element is not strictly necessary, but is included to ease
the transition to XHTML2.
Like the object element, this element's content is only presented if
the referenced resource is unavailable.
http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml2/mod-image.html#s_imagemodule

> -Or rework it another way; I'm not
> proposing normative standards here, only a philosophy of solution. The
> parser is just one aspect of hypertext rendering and I truly believe the
> whole schlemeil needs to be re-evaluated on the basis of current
> empirical experience and revised in a manner which seems to at least
> partially elude the w3c's "citadel of knowledge". When automobiles were
> first constructed and wise men gleaned a time that horses would be
> replaced, they didn't make the vehicles consume hay and expel road apples
> every couple of miles, did they? That's kind of the picture I get when I
> contemplate markup "progress". More than one thing needs to be changed,
> that's for sure, and if compatibility is the issue which is inhibiting
> innovation, the solution is obviously to go another way. Well, it's
> obvious to me.
>
> --
> Bone Ur
> Cavemen have formidable pheromones.

dorayme

06-17-2008, 02:49

In article
<1194261165.957034.42220@19g2000hsx.googlegroups.co m>,
Travis Newbury <TravisNewbury@hotmail.com> wrote:

> On Nov 4, 8:51 pm, dorayme <doraymeRidT...@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
> > > You wanted to know what I mean when I say a table can't be fluid. I
> > > gave you an example.
> > Look, it seems that we are on different wavelengths here.
>
> I believe Jerry just likes to pick fights. You are wasting your time
> here Jerry is a closed minded buffoon. He fears what he does not
> understand

I was - naively I guess - hoping to get him to define a few
things so that the exchanges could actually be a bit informative
to whoever might read them on usenet. I suspect he is simply not
prepared to do the hard work of rubbing some words together.

The fact is that many table layouts are very fluid in all sorts
of good senses. There are some deeper senses in which they are
not - to do with platform and device variations. And there are
other senses in which they are not as easy to update, rearrange
or adapt as templates. But none of this stuff is he interested in
even listing (never mind explaining), hurling abuse, saying as
little as possible and oozing hints of knowledge and authority is
more his game. And ever ready with his oft repeated accusations
of trolling by people who do not fall into line with him quietly.
There is indeed a strong argument that people like him have a
fair number of the characteristics of a troll than those he
accuses.

--
dorayme

WebmasterSanta

06-17-2008, 02:49

On Nov 3, 10:49 am, Chaddy2222 <spamlovermailbox-
sicur...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
> mic...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Nov 3, 3:35 pm, 1001 Webs <1001w...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > Every respected Web-authoring Guru says that.
> > > This is the era of table-less design, CSS code, XHTML compliant
> > > websites.
> > > Separate layout from content.
>
> > > There's no reason to use tables any more.
> > > Everything can be done with CSS.
> > > Tables are so 2002ish ...
>
> > > Do you agree with that?
> > > I don't.
> > > I've run into many situations where I just couldn't achieve the
> > > desired effect in different browsers without using tables.
> > > But it could be that I'm not well versed on the intricacies of CSS ...
>
> > Tables are the easiest
> > If you need something simple use tables
>
> That's not true. CSS is simple and more powerfull then layout tables.
> As an example check out this template I made.http://freewebdesign.awardspace.biz/temp/template.html
> --
> Regards Chad.http://freewebdesign.awardspace.biz- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Sorry your 2 examples look clunky. You need to go back to tables. CSS
is a lot of hype. We need to start telling the yahoooos what our
compliants are not what they what it to be.

David Dorward

06-17-2008, 02:49

On Nov 5, 7:52 pm, Bone Ur <monstersquas...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> Well, I didn't know some of that, particularly that XML can be parsed
> without accessing a dtd. But xhtml "needs" a dtd, or is it just because
> of the compatibility issues with appendix c et al?

The spec requires that XHTML documents have a Doctype.

Not having a Doctype triggers Quirks mode in many browsers.

Appendix C has nothing to do with this.

> And if in the context
> of what you said there's a meaningful difference between XML and xhtml,
> the logical question is can SGML (not html) be parsed without a dtd also?

When I said 'XML', I meant "a given dialect of XML".

Given a dialect of SGML, and no DTD, it isn't possible to know which
elements have optional start tags, which have optional end tags, and
which have forbidden end tags. If we use HTML for example:

<title>foo</title>
<p>Hello, world
<div>Goodbye, world</div>

Without knowing HTML (via a DTD or otherwise), the parser has no way
to know that it needs to insert an HTML, HEAD and BODY elements, or
that the P element should end before the DIV and not after it.

> Anyway, I'm still not impressed. What's wrong with making <img
> src="my.png">Look at me.</img> the "right way to do it" and getting rid
> of the stupid "alt" attribute?

It would be nice, and HTML 4.01 has:

<object type="image/png" src="my.png">Look at me.</object>

.... but browser support is weak.

<img> is legacy from HTML 3.2 and earlier.

> that's for sure, and if compatibility is the issue which is inhibiting
> innovation, the solution is obviously to go another way. Well, it's
> obvious to me.

The problem with abandoning everything we have already is that you
have to get browser vendors to support the new thing (nobody is using
it, where's the demand?) and authors to use the new thing (the old
thing does what I want, and nothing supports the new thing). Which is
why XHTML 2 is likely to fail on the web.

--
David Dorward
http://dorward.me.uk/
http://blog.dorward.me.uk/

Bone Ur

06-17-2008, 02:49

Well bust mah britches and call me cheeky, on Tue, 06 Nov 2007 09:45:27
GMT David Dorward scribed:

>> Well, I didn't know some of that, particularly that XML can be parsed
>> without accessing a dtd. But xhtml "needs" a dtd, or is it just
>> because of the compatibility issues with appendix c et al?
>
> The spec requires that XHTML documents have a Doctype.
>
> Not having a Doctype triggers Quirks mode in many browsers.
>
> Appendix C has nothing to do with this.
>
>> And if in the context
>> of what you said there's a meaningful difference between XML and
>> xhtml, the logical question is can SGML (not html) be parsed without
>> a dtd also?
>
> When I said 'XML', I meant "a given dialect of XML".
>
> Given a dialect of SGML, and no DTD, it isn't possible to know which
> elements have optional start tags, which have optional end tags, and
> which have forbidden end tags. If we use HTML for example:
>
> <title>foo</title>
> <p>Hello, world
> <div>Goodbye, world</div>
>
> Without knowing HTML (via a DTD or otherwise), the parser has no way
> to know that it needs to insert an HTML, HEAD and BODY elements, or
> that the P element should end before the DIV and not after it.

Excepting the situation with the <p> element, don't xhtml parsers have
the same problem? Or is that "built in" whereas it isn't with sgml
parsers?

>> Anyway, I'm still not impressed. What's wrong with making <img
>> src="my.png">Look at me.</img> the "right way to do it" and getting
>> rid of the stupid "alt" attribute?
>
> It would be nice, and HTML 4.01 has:
>
> <object type="image/png" src="my.png">Look at me.</object>
>
> ... but browser support is weak.
>
> <img> is legacy from HTML 3.2 and earlier.

Uh huh, and I think "my idea" came from some recommendation (from
somewhere) to use the <object> element for images. But as you suggest,
browser support is pitiful. However, (jumping ahead a little,) I think
this is one thing that could be fixed without too much "upsetting the
apple cart".

>> that's for sure, and if compatibility is the issue which is
>> inhibiting innovation, the solution is obviously to go another way.
>> Well, it's obvious to me.
>
> The problem with abandoning everything we have already is that you
> have to get browser vendors to support the new thing (nobody is using
> it, where's the demand?) and authors to use the new thing (the old
> thing does what I want, and nothing supports the new thing).

Which is why, in effect, browser vendors control the markup. I suppose
I've been a little hard on the w3c for they _are_ "fighting city hall" in
an ironic way, but it's just so flabbergasting that it seems to take eons
to fix these things. Anyway, I'm out of ideas so thanks for your input.
Perhaps you've tempered my frustration just a bit. :)

> Which is
> why XHTML 2 is likely to fail on the web.

Agreed.

--
Bone Ur
Cavemen have formidable pheromones.

Andy Dingley

06-17-2008, 02:49

On 4 Nov, 15:50, 1001 Webs <1001w...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Bear in mind that CSS rules that apply to HTML, apply only to
> documents that are delivered as text/html, but not to XHTML.

Shame Viper only hunts spammers, not idiots.

<plonk>

David Dorward

06-17-2008, 02:49

Bone Ur wrote:
> > <title>foo</title>
> > <p>Hello, world
> > <div>Goodbye, world</div>
> >
> > Without knowing HTML (via a DTD or otherwise), the parser has no way
> > to know that it needs to insert an HTML, HEAD and BODY elements, or
> > that the P element should end before the DIV and not after it.
>
> Excepting the situation with the <p> element, don't xhtml parsers have
> the same problem?

No, because the start and end tags for those elements aren't optional.
Since they don't appear in the document, they don't exist.

--
David Dorward
http://dorward.me.uk/
http://blog.dorward.me.uk/

Chris F.A. Johnson

06-17-2008, 02:49

On 2007-11-06, Andy Dingley wrote:
>
> On 4 Nov, 15:50, 1001 Webs <1001w...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Bear in mind that CSS rules that apply to HTML, apply only to
>> documents that are delivered as text/html, but not to XHTML.
>
> Shame Viper only hunts spammers, not idiots.

I disagree.

He wouldn't be able to distinguish between idiots and non-idiots any
more than he can between spammers and non-spammers.

--
Chris F.A. Johnson, webmaster <http://Woodbine-Gerrard.com>
================================================== =================
Author:
Shell Scripting Recipes: A Problem-Solution Approach (2005, Apress)

Chaddy2222

06-17-2008, 02:49

Heidi wrote:
> Chaddy2222 wrote:
> : It was a template I developed for my own sites.
> : http://freewebdesign.awardspace.biz now is useing it.
> : It should look a lot better as I changed a lot of things in the CSS.
>
> I hope you can take constructive criticism...
>
> The flash thingy for your portfolio is annoying. Why does the text have to
> flip, roll, spin, or bounce oddly into place?
>
>
> Heidi
>
Hmmm do you think it would look better if they all (meaning the text)
came in the same way? I believe I was thinking of doing that first.
--
Regards Chad. http://freewebdesign.awardspace.biz

1001 Webs

06-17-2008, 02:49

On Nov 7, 6:39 am, Chaddy2222 <spamlovermailbox-sicur...@yahoo.com.au>
wrote:
> Heidi wrote:
> > Chaddy2222 wrote:
> > : It was a template I developed for my own sites.
> > :http://freewebdesign.awardspace.biz now is useing it.
> > : It should look a lot better as I changed a lot of things in the CSS.
>
> > I hope you can take constructive criticism...
>
> > The flash thingy for your portfolio is annoying. Why does the text have to
> > flip, roll, spin, or bounce oddly into place?
>
> > Heidi
>
> Hmmm do you think it would look better if they all (meaning the text)
> came in the same way? I believe I was thinking of doing that first.
It would look better if you learned to use Flash in the first place.
It is just pathetic the way it looks.
Aren't you ashamed of showing off such a disgrace?

Jerry Stuckle

06-17-2008, 02:49

1001 Webs wrote:
> On Nov 7, 6:39 am, Chaddy2222 <spamlovermailbox-sicur...@yahoo.com.au>
> wrote:
>> Heidi wrote:
>>> Chaddy2222 wrote:
>>> : It was a template I developed for my own sites.
>>> :http://freewebdesign.awardspace.biz now is useing it.
>>> : It should look a lot better as I changed a lot of things in the CSS.
>>> I hope you can take constructive criticism...
>>> The flash thingy for your portfolio is annoying. Why does the text have to
>>> flip, roll, spin, or bounce oddly into place?
>>> Heidi
>> Hmmm do you think it would look better if they all (meaning the text)
>> came in the same way? I believe I was thinking of doing that first.
> It would look better if you learned to use Flash in the first place.
> It is just pathetic the way it looks.
> Aren't you ashamed of showing off such a disgrace?
>
>

You should get your own site in shape before criticizing others.

--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.
jstucklex@attglobal.net
==================

Chaddy2222

06-17-2008, 02:49

On Nov 7, 11:41 pm, Jerry Stuckle <jstuck...@attglobal.net> wrote:
> 1001 Webs wrote:
> > On Nov 7, 6:39 am, Chaddy2222 <spamlovermailbox-sicur...@yahoo.com.au>
> > wrote:
> >> Heidi wrote:
> >>> Chaddy2222 wrote:
> >>> : It was a template I developed for my own sites.
> >>> :http://freewebdesign.awardspace.biznow is useing it.
> >>> : It should look a lot better as I changed a lot of things in the CSS.
> >>> I hope you can take constructive criticism...
> >>> The flash thingy for your portfolio is annoying. Why does the text have to
> >>> flip, roll, spin, or bounce oddly into place?
> >>> Heidi
> >> Hmmm do you think it would look better if they all (meaning the text)
> >> came in the same way? I believe I was thinking of doing that first.
> > It would look better if you learned to use Flash in the first place.
> > It is just pathetic the way it looks.
> > Aren't you ashamed of showing off such a disgrace?
>
> You should get your own site in shape before criticizing others.
>
I could not agree more.
I need to be honest here:
I can NOT believe that with the OP's lack of clue and understanding
about some rather fundamentall facts concerning website design that
he even expects to get payed for what he slaps together.
Baysicly, the OP is a hack, that's evident from the fact that he /
she / it uses third party templates.
Frankly if clients wanted third party templates, and CMS's they could
just install Joomla.
BTW, that's why I have not been much of a fan of the CMS packages I
have found, they are all reliant on templates that use very bloated
code.
--
Regards Chad. http://freewebdesign.awardspace.biz

Els

06-17-2008, 02:49

Chaddy2222 wrote:

> BTW, that's why I have not been much of a fan of the CMS packages I
> have found, they are all reliant on templates that use very bloated
> code.

Have to correct you there, Chad - I use Joomla for clients all the
time, but in no way do I depend on templates with bloated code. I
write the templates myself, and replace tables with divs where needed.
Obviously, this does need quite a bit of customisation, but that's why
they pay me for it ;-)

--
Els http://locusmeus.com/

Chaddy2222

06-17-2008, 02:49

On Nov 8, 1:03 am, Els <els.aNOS...@tiscali.nl> wrote:
> Chaddy2222 wrote:
> > BTW, that's why I have not been much of a fan of the CMS packages I
> > have found, they are all reliant on templates that use very bloated
> > code.
>
> Have to correct you there, Chad - I use Joomla for clients all the
> time, but in no way do I depend on templates with bloated code. I
> write the templates myself, and replace tables with divs where needed.
> Obviously, this does need quite a bit of customisation, but that's why
> they pay me for it ;-)
>
Yes, I must admit i'll be looking at template customisation very soon
in Joomla.
I just did not like the default templates in Mambo.
--
Regards Chad.

Els

06-17-2008, 02:49

Chaddy2222 wrote:

> On Nov 8, 1:03 am, Els <els.aNOS...@tiscali.nl> wrote:
>> Chaddy2222 wrote:
>>> BTW, that's why I have not been much of a fan of the CMS packages I
>>> have found, they are all reliant on templates that use very bloated
>>> code.
>>
>> Have to correct you there, Chad - I use Joomla for clients all the
>> time, but in no way do I depend on templates with bloated code. I
>> write the templates myself, and replace tables with divs where needed.
>> Obviously, this does need quite a bit of customisation, but that's why
>> they pay me for it ;-)
>>
> Yes, I must admit i'll be looking at template customisation very soon
> in Joomla.
> I just did not like the default templates in Mambo.

Have a look at the new Joomla version, 1.5. Status is release
candidate at the moment, and it comes with two default templates, of
which one entirely accessible and tableless.

--
Els http://locusmeus.com/

SpaceGirl

06-17-2008, 02:49

On Nov 7, 2:03 pm, Els <els.aNOS...@tiscali.nl> wrote:
> Chaddy2222 wrote:
> > BTW, that's why I have not been much of a fan of the CMS packages I
> > have found, they are all reliant on templates that use very bloated
> > code.
>
> Have to correct you there, Chad - I use Joomla for clients all the
> time, but in no way do I depend on templates with bloated code. I
> write the templates myself, and replace tables with divs where needed.
> Obviously, this does need quite a bit of customisation, but that's why
> they pay me for it ;-)
>
> --
> Els http://locusmeus.com/

How do you find Joomla! Els? I have a client wanting to use it, and I
was pushing them more in the direction of WordPress (which I have more
experience with). They currently have Joomla! but I really can't get
to grips with it!

Els

06-17-2008, 02:49

SpaceGirl wrote:

> How do you find Joomla! Els? I have a client wanting to use it, and I
> was pushing them more in the direction of WordPress (which I have more
> experience with). They currently have Joomla! but I really can't get
> to grips with it!

I've never used Wordpress, but Joomla is a piece of cake . At the
same time though, I've now been using it for over a year, and I'm
still discovering handy features I didn't know about. (I guess that's
what you get for not reading manuals...)

______________
miles may differ ;-)

(fup to a.w.w)

--
Els http://locusmeus.com/

1001 Webs

06-17-2008, 02:49

On Nov 7, 1:41 pm, Jerry Stuckle <jstuck...@attglobal.net> wrote:
> 1001 Webs wrote:
> > On Nov 7, 6:39 am, Chaddy2222 <spamlovermailbox-sicur...@yahoo.com.au>
> > wrote:
> >> Heidi wrote:
> >>> Chaddy2222 wrote:
> >>> : It was a template I developed for my own sites.
> >>> :http://freewebdesign.awardspace.biznow is useing it.
> >>> : It should look a lot better as I changed a lot of things in the CSS.
> >>> I hope you can take constructive criticism...
> >>> The flash thingy for your portfolio is annoying. Why does the text have to
> >>> flip, roll, spin, or bounce oddly into place?
> >>> Heidi
> >> Hmmm do you think it would look better if they all (meaning the text)
> >> came in the same way? I believe I was thinking of doing that first.
> > It would look better if you learned to use Flash in the first place.
> > It is just pathetic the way it looks.
> > Aren't you ashamed of showing off such a disgrace?
>
> You should get your own site in shape before criticizing others.

You should get a website before attempting to even open your mouth,
you phony "instructor".
Hey people, Jerry Sucker does NOT have his own website.
That says it all, doesn't it?

Have you been able to "instruct" your dog at least.?
Can't even do that, can you?

1001 Webs

06-17-2008, 02:49

On Nov 7, 2:58 pm, Chaddy2222 <spamlovermailbox-sicur...@yahoo.com.au>
wrote:
> On Nov 7, 11:41 pm, Jerry Stuckle <jstuck...@attglobal.net> wrote:
>
> > 1001 Webs wrote:
> > > On Nov 7, 6:39 am, Chaddy2222 <spamlovermailbox-sicur...@yahoo.com.au>
> > > wrote:
> > >> Heidi wrote:
> > >>> Chaddy2222 wrote:
> > >>> : It was a template I developed for my own sites.
> > >>> :http://freewebdesign.awardspace.biznowis useing it.
> > >>> : It should look a lot better as I changed a lot of things in the CSS.
> > >>> I hope you can take constructive criticism...
> > >>> The flash thingy for your portfolio is annoying. Why does the text have to
> > >>> flip, roll, spin, or bounce oddly into place?
> > >>> Heidi
> > >> Hmmm do you think it would look better if they all (meaning the text)
> > >> came in the same way? I believe I was thinking of doing that first.
> > > It would look better if you learned to use Flash in the first place.
> > > It is just pathetic the way it looks.
> > > Aren't you ashamed of showing off such a disgrace?
>
> > You should get your own site in shape before criticizing others.
>
> I could not agree more.
> I need to be honest here:
> I can NOT believe that with the OP's lack of clue and understanding
> about some rather fundamentall facts concerning website design that
> he even expects to get payed for what he slaps together.
> Baysicly, the OP is a hack, that's evident from the fact that he /
> she / it uses third party templates.
> Frankly if clients wanted third party templates, and CMS's they could
> just install Joomla.
> BTW, that's why I have not been much of a fan of the CMS packages I
> have found, they are all reliant on templates that use very bloated
> code.
Hi moron,

here, have a look at some Flash created by me.
http://www.geocities.com/microlink_estepona/

don't like it really, but compared to yours it looks like "Halo 3"

Jerry Stuckle

06-17-2008, 02:49

1001 Webs wrote:
> On Nov 7, 1:41 pm, Jerry Stuckle <jstuck...@attglobal.net> wrote:
>> 1001 Webs wrote:
>>> On Nov 7, 6:39 am, Chaddy2222 <spamlovermailbox-sicur...@yahoo.com.au>
>>> wrote:
>>>> Heidi wrote:
>>>>> Chaddy2222 wrote:
>>>>> : It was a template I developed for my own sites.
>>>>> :http://freewebdesign.awardspace.biznow is useing it.
>>>>> : It should look a lot better as I changed a lot of things in the CSS.
>>>>> I hope you can take constructive criticism...
>>>>> The flash thingy for your portfolio is annoying. Why does the text have to
>>>>> flip, roll, spin, or bounce oddly into place?
>>>>> Heidi
>>>> Hmmm do you think it would look better if they all (meaning the text)
>>>> came in the same way? I believe I was thinking of doing that first.
>>> It would look better if you learned to use Flash in the first place.
>>> It is just pathetic the way it looks.
>>> Aren't you ashamed of showing off such a disgrace?
>> You should get your own site in shape before criticizing others.
>
> You should get a website before attempting to even open your mouth,
> you phony "instructor".
> Hey people, Jerry Sucker does NOT have his own website.
> That says it all, doesn't it?
>

Nope, I don't have a website YOU KNOW ABOUT. My training company
doesn't need one - I've got more work than I want right now. I do have
other websites - but they have nothing to do with webmastering and I
don't advertise them.

> Have you been able to "instruct" your dog at least.?
> Can't even do that, can you?
>
>

Actually, my training company probably brought in more money last month
than you have all year.

--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.
jstucklex@attglobal.net
==================

Jonathan N. Little

06-17-2008, 02:49

Jerry Stuckle wrote:
> 1001 Webs wrote:
>> On Nov 7, 1:41 pm, Jerry Stuckle <jstuck...@attglobal.net> wrote:

> Nope, I don't have a website YOU KNOW ABOUT. My training company
> doesn't need one - I've got more work than I want right now. I do have
> other websites - but they have nothing to do with webmastering and I
> don't advertise them.
>
>> Have you been able to "instruct" your dog at least.?
>> Can't even do that, can you?
>>
>>
>
> Actually, my training company probably brought in more money last month
> than you have all year.
>

Nice pissing contest guys! But it does really have anything to do with
the topic at hand, whether quality of design and skill translates to a
better web delivered product?

--
Take care,

Jonathan
-------------------
LITTLE WORKS STUDIO
http://www.LittleWorksStudio.com

paul watt

06-17-2008, 02:49

"Chaddy2222" <spamlovermailbox-sicurity@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
news:1194364128.987613.276010@e34g2000pro.googlegr oups.com...
>
> Heidi wrote:
>> Chaddy2222 wrote:
>> : It was a template I developed for my own sites.
>> : http://freewebdesign.awardspace.biz now is useing it.
>> : It should look a lot better as I changed a lot of things in the CSS.
>>
>> I hope you can take constructive criticism...
>>
>> The flash thingy for your portfolio is annoying. Why does the text have
>> to
>> flip, roll, spin, or bounce oddly into place?
>>
>>
>> Heidi
>>
> Hmmm do you think it would look better if they all (meaning the text)
> came in the same way? I believe I was thinking of doing that first.

Hey Chad,
How ya doing mate? Why are you concentrating on flash? I thought that would
move you away from the accessable aspect of your philosophy?

--
Paul Watt

http://www.paulwattdesigns.com

Chaddy2222

06-17-2008, 02:49

paul watt wrote:
> "Chaddy2222" <spamlovermailbox-sicurity@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
> news:1194364128.987613.276010@e34g2000pro.googlegr oups.com...
> >
> > Heidi wrote:
> >> Chaddy2222 wrote:
> >> : It was a template I developed for my own sites.
> >> : http://freewebdesign.awardspace.biz now is useing it.
> >> : It should look a lot better as I changed a lot of things in the CSS.
> >>
> >> I hope you can take constructive criticism...
> >>
> >> The flash thingy for your portfolio is annoying. Why does the text have
> >> to
> >> flip, roll, spin, or bounce oddly into place?
> >>
> >>
> >> Heidi
> >>
> > Hmmm do you think it would look better if they all (meaning the text)
> > came in the same way? I believe I was thinking of doing that first.
>
> Hey Chad,
> How ya doing mate? Why are you concentrating on flash? I thought that would
> move you away from the accessable aspect of your philosophy?
>
Well, you perhaps have a point there Paul. As Flash is not widely as
accessible as it could be.
However I am only useing it for one particular section / feature of
the website and for what it does it works well.
I am also planning other
sections in particular an our sites type section where I will place
examples of my work and descriptions etc.
--
Regards Chad. http://freewebdesign.awardspace.biz

Chaddy2222

06-17-2008, 02:49

paul watt wrote:
> "Chaddy2222" <spamlovermailbox-sicurity@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
> news:1194364128.987613.276010@e34g2000pro.googlegr oups.com...
> >
> > Heidi wrote:
> >> Chaddy2222 wrote:
> >> : It was a template I developed for my own sites.
> >> : http://freewebdesign.awardspace.biz now is useing it.
> >> : It should look a lot better as I changed a lot of things in the CSS.
> >>
> >> I hope you can take constructive criticism...
> >>
> >> The flash thingy for your portfolio is annoying. Why does the text have
> >> to
> >> flip, roll, spin, or bounce oddly into place?
> >>
> >>
> >> Heidi
> >>
> > Hmmm do you think it would look better if they all (meaning the text)
> > came in the same way? I believe I was thinking of doing that first.
>
> Hey Chad,
> How ya doing mate?
<snip>
Hay again Paul, I am doing quite well. I finished my final Uni exam
for the year today (well yesterday now I guess.
I am also working on a re-design of the Web Design Tips Online
project, soon to be officially launched.
I am also launching my new domain name on Monday
(freewebdesignonline.org).
How are you going anyway, have you got more business yet?.
--
Regards Chad.

Matt Probert

06-17-2008, 02:49

"paul watt" <paul@NOSPAMpaulwatt.info> wrote:

>Hey Chad,
>How ya doing mate? Why are you concentrating on flash? I thought that would
>move you away from the accessable aspect of your philosophy?

You may be considering accessible only through terms of visual
impairment. Children and possibly therefore those with learning
difficulties, often find pictures, and by extenson, Flash more
accessible than plain text.

Similarly the deaf; those born profoundly death may not have learned a
spoken language (English, Spanish, German etc) toa high level, and as
such may find pictures easier to comprehend than written words.

Matt

--
Author of The Probert Encyclopaedia
http://www.probertencyclopaedia.com

GreyWyvern

06-17-2008, 02:49

And lo, Matt didst speak in a-buncha-groups:

> those born profoundly death may not have learned a
> spoken language

I don't think those people are even able to worry about website
accessibility...

Grey

--
The technical axiom that nothing is impossible sinisterly implies the
pitfall corollary that nothing is ridiculous.
- http://www.greywyvern.com/orca#search - Orca Search: Full-featured
spider and site-search engine

paul watt

06-17-2008, 02:49

"Chaddy2222" <spamlovermailbox-sicurity@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
news:1194532323.646449.235310@e9g2000prf.googlegro ups.com...
>
> paul watt wrote:
>> "Chaddy2222" <spamlovermailbox-sicurity@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
>> news:1194364128.987613.276010@e34g2000pro.googlegr oups.com...
>> >
>> > Heidi wrote:
>> >> Chaddy2222 wrote:
>> >> : It was a template I developed for my own sites.
>> >> : http://freewebdesign.awardspace.biz now is useing it.
>> >> : It should look a lot better as I changed a lot of things in the CSS.
>> >>
>> >> I hope you can take constructive criticism...
>> >>
>> >> The flash thingy for your portfolio is annoying. Why does the text
>> >> have
>> >> to
>> >> flip, roll, spin, or bounce oddly into place?
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Heidi
>> >>
>> > Hmmm do you think it would look better if they all (meaning the text)
>> > came in the same way? I believe I was thinking of doing that first.
>>
>> Hey Chad,
>> How ya doing mate?
> <snip>
> Hay again Paul, I am doing quite well. I finished my final Uni exam
> for the year today (well yesterday now I guess.
> I am also working on a re-design of the Web Design Tips Online
> project, soon to be officially launched.
> I am also launching my new domain name on Monday
> (freewebdesignonline.org).
> How are you going anyway, have you got more business yet?.

i'm not doing bad thanks, got a bit of buisness, just done a freebie for my
sister and i've got something else in the pipe line. I've had to take a full
time job but thats ok

--
Paul Watt

http://www.paulwattdesigns.com

Chaddy2222

06-17-2008, 02:49

paul watt wrote:
> "Chaddy2222" <spamlovermailbox-sicurity@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
> news:1194532323.646449.235310@e9g2000prf.googlegro ups.com...
> >
> > paul watt wrote:
> >> "Chaddy2222" <spamlovermailbox-sicurity@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
> >> news:1194364128.987613.276010@e34g2000pro.googlegr oups.com...
> >> >
> >> > Heidi wrote:
> >> >> Chaddy2222 wrote:
> >> >> : It was a template I developed for my own sites.
> >> >> : http://freewebdesign.awardspace.biz now is useing it.
> >> >> : It should look a lot better as I changed a lot of things in the CSS.
> >> >>
> >> >> I hope you can take constructive criticism...
> >> >>
> >> >> The flash thingy for your portfolio is annoying. Why does the text
> >> >> have
> >> >> to
> >> >> flip, roll, spin, or bounce oddly into place?
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> Heidi
> >> >>
> >> > Hmmm do you think it would look better if they all (meaning the text)
> >> > came in the same way? I believe I was thinking of doing that first.
> >>
> >> Hey Chad,
> >> How ya doing mate?
> > <snip>
> > Hay again Paul, I am doing quite well. I finished my final Uni exam
> > for the year today (well yesterday now I guess.
> > I am also working on a re-design of the Web Design Tips Online
> > project, soon to be officially launched.
> > I am also launching my new domain name on Monday
> > (freewebdesignonline.org).
> > How are you going anyway, have you got more business yet?.
>
> i'm not doing bad thanks, got a bit of buisness, just done a freebie for my
> sister and i've got something else in the pipe line. I've had to take a full
> time job but thats ok
>
Hmm it's a worry really.
But I am sure you know who to blaim for the lack of work, it's those
dam graphic designer hacks who think they can slap up pages and call
themselves a web designer.
They also charge very low rates.
BTW just a thaught have you considard buying ads in local newspapers
as well as web based (Google Add words) comes to mind.
--
Regards Chad. http://freewebdesign.awardspace.biz

1001 Webs

06-17-2008, 02:49

On Nov 8, 2:26 pm, "paul watt" <p...@NOSPAMpaulwatt.info> wrote:
> "Chaddy2222" <spamlovermailbox-sicur...@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
>
> news:1194364128.987613.276010@e34g2000pro.googlegr oups.com...
>
>
>
>
>
> > Heidi wrote:
> >> Chaddy2222 wrote:
> >> : It was a template I developed for my own sites.
> >> :http://freewebdesign.awardspace.biz now is useing it.
> >> : It should look a lot better as I changed a lot of things in the CSS.
>
> >> I hope you can take constructive criticism...
>
> >> The flash thingy for your portfolio is annoying. Why does the text have
> >> to
> >> flip, roll, spin, or bounce oddly into place?
>
> >> Heidi
>
> > Hmmm do you think it would look better if they all (meaning the text)
> > came in the same way? I believe I was thinking of doing that first.
>
> Hey Chad,
> How ya doing mate? Why are you concentrating on flash?
"concentrating on Flash"???
Oh I see, it is a joke.
I get it now.
Very funny.
Hilarious, really, good one !!!

> I thought that would
> move you away from the accessable aspect of your philosophy?
Another joke, no doubt ...

Matt Probert

06-17-2008, 02:49

GreyWyvern <spam@greywyvern.com> wrote:

>And lo, Matt didst speak in a-buncha-groups:
>
>> those born profoundly death may not have learned a
>> spoken language
>
>I don't think those people are even able to worry about website
>accessibility...

Which illustrates perfectly the typical level of ignorance and bigotry
we have in the Western world.

I have two profoundly deaf chums. They smoke pot, drink too much beer,
fornicate, but communicate in sign language rather than English.
They're deaf, not stupid.

In short, like all disabled people they are the same as everyone else.
All the same, all different. They all need to make use of services, so
to bar them from your web site, doesn't make economic sense.

Matt

--
Author of The Probert Encyclopaedia
http://www.probertencyclopaedia.com

Els

06-17-2008, 02:49

Matt Probert wrote:

> GreyWyvern <spam@greywyvern.com> wrote:
>
>>And lo, Matt didst speak in a-buncha-groups:
>>
>>> those born profoundly death may not have learned a
>>> spoken language
>>
>>I don't think those people are even able to worry about website
>>accessibility...
>
> Which illustrates perfectly the typical level of ignorance and bigotry
> we have in the Western world.

And that illustrates how some people fail to read all the words
properly ;-)

--
Els http://locusmeus.com/

Chaddy2222

06-17-2008, 02:49

Matt Probert wrote:
> "paul watt" <paul@NOSPAMpaulwatt.info> wrote:
>
> >Hey Chad,
> >How ya doing mate? Why are you concentrating on flash? I thought that would
> >move you away from the accessable aspect of your philosophy?
>
>
> You may be considering accessible only through terms of visual
> impairment. Children and possibly therefore those with learning
> difficulties, often find pictures, and by extenson, Flash more
> accessible than plain text.
>
That is quite true.

> Similarly the deaf; those born profoundly death may not have learned a
> spoken language (English, Spanish, German etc) toa high level, and as
> such may find pictures easier to comprehend than written words.
>
> Matt
>
BTW the main reason for doing my portfolio the way I did is mainly due
to the fact that it's just easier and you can do more visual effects
for that kind of stuff in F;lash then in HTML.
--
Regards Chad.

Els

06-17-2008, 02:49

Chaddy2222 wrote:

> BTW the main reason for doing my portfolio the way I did is mainly due
> to the fact that it's just easier and you can do more visual effects
> for that kind of stuff in F;lash then in HTML.

That's just the thing: your portfolio shows static sites. Why
shouldn't it just be a series of images with text? There is nothing
that Flashy effects could add to it. There is no interaction needed in
the portfolio as far as I can see, and the visual effects are just not
needed at all. They don't help convey your message, in fact quite the
opposite. If you want the slideshow, use unobtrusive JavaScript so
that a visitor without JavaScript can still browse it with regular
links, and those with JavaScript will get the slideshow bonus. (if it
is a bonus, but that's a matter of personal taste)

Just look at it from the potential customer's point of view: he's
blind, and is looking for someone who makes accessible websites.
Unfortunately he can't check out your accessible work, because you hid
it in inaccessible Flash. Tell me, does that make sense at all?

--
Els http://locusmeus.com/

GreyWyvern

06-17-2008, 02:49

And lo, Matt didst speak in a-buncha-groups:

> GreyWyvern wrote:
>
>> And lo, Matt didst speak in a-buncha-groups:
>>
>>> those born profoundly death may not have learned a
>>> spoken language
>>
>> I don't think those people are even able to worry about website
>> accessibility...
>
> Which illustrates perfectly the typical level of ignorance and bigotry
> we have in the Western world.

I forgive you.

Here, how's this for accessibiity?
http://www.wmfs.net/wmfs/home.xtml?bhcp=1

If you put your mouse over the little woman, she signs the contents of the
page for deaf users...

....

....

!

Grey

--
The technical axiom that nothing is impossible sinisterly implies the
pitfall corollary that nothing is ridiculous.
- http://www.greywyvern.com/orca#search - Orca Search: Full-featured
spider and site-search engine

Els

06-17-2008, 02:49

GreyWyvern wrote:

> Here, how's this for accessibiity?
> http://www.wmfs.net/wmfs/home.xtml?bhcp=1
>
> If you put your mouse over the little woman, she signs the contents of the
> page for deaf users...

LOL!

--
Els http://locusmeus.com/

Phil Payne

06-17-2008, 02:49

> Similarly the deaf; those born profoundly death may not have learned a
> spoken language (English, Spanish, German etc) to a high level, and as
> such may find pictures easier to comprehend than written words.

"Hey, she's deaf. Just give her some picture books."

That has to be the most ignorant, presumptive, prejudiced and
downright DUMB statement I've read on Usenet for many years.

My late and much lamented grandmother was born profoundly deaf as a
result of her mother catching Rubella during pregnancy.

Not only was reading one of her greatest pleasures in life, but she
was very adept on a piano even though she could hear absolutely
nothing. She had a metronome on top of the instrument and just
enjoyed using her fingers and the rhythm. Even as a seven-year-old I
enjoyed her playing of the classics.

She could lipread at thirty yards and had her eyes checked twice a
year to keep up this capability. Nobody had any secrets from her.

I've known her many times watch TV programmes for a few minutes and
then sort in disgust: "All stolen from Marlowe/Shakespeare/whoever".

She lived near Tamworth in Staffordshire. The Mobile Library used to
stop outside the house once a fortnight and the driver would walk down
the path and wave through the window - she would then go out and get
eight books. You were only allowed four, but she had a ticket in her
husband's name and got another four on that.

The scriptwriters on Starsky and Hutch once admitted they had four
basic plots and two variants, all from Shakespeare. My grandma
spotted every one - ten minutes into a programme she'd tell you which
one they were using and start predicting EVERY SINGLE scene. "He's
the Malvolio character this time."

Until the middle of the eighteenth century, deaf people in England
were unable to "inherit property, to marry, to receive education, to
have adequately challenging work-and were denied fundamental human
rights" (Sachs, Oliver Sacks, Seeing Voices. Harper Perennial: New
York, 1990.)

Let's not go back there, huh?

dorayme

06-17-2008, 02:49

In article <op.t1hn9almsl6xfd@bhuisman>,
GreyWyvern <spam@greywyvern.com> wrote:
>
> Here, how's this for accessibiity?
> http://www.wmfs.net/wmfs/home.xtml?bhcp=1

Now *that* is sheerly brilliant!

--
dorayme

1001 Webs

06-17-2008, 02:49

On Nov 8, 8:54 pm, GreyWyvern <s...@greywyvern.com> wrote:
> And lo, Matt didst speak in a-buncha-groups:
>
> > GreyWyvern wrote:
>
> >> And lo, Matt didst speak in a-buncha-groups:
>
> >>> those born profoundly death may not have learned a
> >>> spoken language
>
> >> I don't think those people are even able to worry about website
> >> accessibility...
>
> > Which illustrates perfectly the typical level of ignorance and bigotry
> > we have in the Western world.
>
> I forgive you.
>
> Here, how's this for accessibiity?
> http://www.wmfs.net/wmfs/home.xtml?bhcp=1
>
> If you put your mouse over the little woman, she signs the contents of the
> page for deaf users...

Nice detail.
Shouldn't you indicate it in some way to deaf users?
A little sign, perhaps, above her?

Don't jump on me now, it's just a good-intentioned suggestion ...

1001 Webs

06-17-2008, 02:49

On Nov 8, 9:26 pm, Phil Payne <p...@isham-research.co.uk> wrote:
> > Similarly the deaf; those born profoundly death may not have learned a
> > spoken language (English, Spanish, German etc) to a high level, and as
> > such may find pictures easier to comprehend than written words.
>
> "Hey, she's deaf. Just give her some picture books."
>
> That has to be the most ignorant, presumptive, prejudiced and
> downright DUMB statement I've read on Usenet for many years.
>
> My late and much lamented grandmother was born profoundly deaf as a
> result of her mother catching Rubella during pregnancy.
>
> Not only was reading one of her greatest pleasures in life, but she
> was very adept on a piano even though she could hear absolutely
> nothing. She had a metronome on top of the instrument and just
> enjoyed using her fingers and the rhythm. Even as a seven-year-old I
> enjoyed her playing of the classics.
>
> She could lipread at thirty yards and had her eyes checked twice a
> year to keep up this capability. Nobody had any secrets from her.
>
> I've known her many times watch TV programmes for a few minutes and
> then sort in disgust: "All stolen from Marlowe/Shakespeare/whoever".
>
> She lived near Tamworth in Staffordshire. The Mobile Library used to
> stop outside the house once a fortnight and the driver would walk down
> the path and wave through the window - she would then go out and get
> eight books. You were only allowed four, but she had a ticket in her
> husband's name and got another four on that.
>
> The scriptwriters on Starsky and Hutch once admitted they had four
> basic plots and two variants, all from Shakespeare. My grandma
> spotted every one - ten minutes into a programme she'd tell you which
> one they were using and start predicting EVERY SINGLE scene. "He's
> the Malvolio character this time."
>
> Until the middle of the eighteenth century, deaf people in England
> were unable to "inherit property, to marry, to receive education, to
> have adequately challenging work-and were denied fundamental human
> rights" (Sachs, Oliver Sacks, Seeing Voices. Harper Perennial: New
> York, 1990.)
>
> Let's not go back there, huh?

A practical guide to teaching and supporting deaf learners in foreign
language classes

This book is about deaf people learning spoken/written foreign
languages. To date there has been a dearth of information on this
subject, and in that vacuum there has been a tendency to think that
deaf learners should be steered away from foreign language learning.
http://www.directlearn.co.uk/ashop/catalogue.php?cat=8

How the Deaf (and other Sign language users) are Deprived of their
Linguistic Human Rights.
http://www.terralingua.org/DeafHR.html

Chaddy2222

06-17-2008, 02:49

Els wrote:
> Chaddy2222 wrote:
>
> > BTW the main reason for doing my portfolio the way I did is mainly due
> > to the fact that it's just easier and you can do more visual effects
> > for that kind of stuff in F;lash then in HTML.
>
> That's just the thing: your portfolio shows static sites. Why
> shouldn't it just be a series of images with text? There is nothing
> that Flashy effects could add to it. There is no interaction needed in
> the portfolio as far as I can see, and the visual effects are just not
> needed at all. They don't help convey your message, in fact quite the
> opposite. If you want the slideshow, use unobtrusive JavaScript so
> that a visitor without JavaScript can still browse it with regular
> links, and those with JavaScript will get the slideshow bonus. (if it
> is a bonus, but that's a matter of personal taste)
>
> Just look at it from the potential customer's point of view: he's
> blind, and is looking for someone who makes accessible websites.
> Unfortunately he can't check out your accessible work, because you hid
> it in inaccessible Flash. Tell me, does that make sense at all?
>
>
This is an interesting point, the site is aimed mainly at non
profits but still I guess that considering that some of them are
still on dial-up, due to eather cost location or other factors, it
would probably make sence to make the portfolio page an ordinary HTML
page.
--
Free Web Design Online re-launching soon @ freewebdesignonline.org

1001 Webs

06-17-2008, 02:50

On Nov 10, 7:20 pm, "André Gillibert"
<tabkanDELETETHIS...@yahodeletethato.fr> wrote:
> Ed Jensen wrote:
> > I call this the "Bjarne Stroustrup Excuse". He always argued that
> > it's not C++ that's too complex, but instead, developers not being
> > properly educated.
>
> > We all know how that turned out: C++ has little going for it these
> > days, except simple inertia (i.e., it's not worth rewriting large
> > bases of code in less complex/better languages). Developers continue
> > to increasingly choose simpler/better languages these days, such as
> > Java and C#.
>
> I've programmed many tools, for personal use, with C++, and it works very
> well. I wouldn't use Java (too heavy runtime inertia), C# or C. I find
> that C++ fits my needs.
> C++ isn't the "ultimate universal tool", but it's perfectly fine for many
> application fields for people who master the language.
>
> There's a difference between C++ and CSS.
> Most C++ developers are somehow trained and produce quite correct
> applications.
> But, most CSS developers are highly ignorant, and have fundamentally wrong
> design principles, such as "it should render identically eveywhere".
I fail to see what's "fundamentally wrong" with that.
It is a basic graphic design principle.
When you design a magazine or newspaper for example, every page should
look the same in terms of structure.
You can play with the headers, image positioning, etc. but all pages
should follow the same pattern.
That's why you use Templates and grids.

> Bad news: I've to use many web sites that've been designed by ignorant web
> designers.
> If CSS didn't exist or was harder to use by bad web designers, I wouldn't
> get all that bad stuff.
And if CSS was better implemented and was easier to use by every web
designers, you will get even less bad stuff.

> That's true to a much larger extent for
> JavaScript. 99% of the JavaScript of the web is harmful or at best useless.
> I often disable author's CSS, but, unfortunately, there're more and more
> pages that become hard to read without author's CSS.
>
> > While there's some truth to that argument, at some point you need to
> > be pragmatic. If 99% of the web developers out there are getting it
> > wrong, maybe the tool needs to be more user friendly.
>
> No, it's misused BECAUSE it's too friendly. You don't need to read any
> spec to use it!
> e.g. WISYWIG editors worsen the thing.
I beg to differ. Many of those tags are useless and not recommended,
so why on Earth are they allowed?
Could you please tell me what's the use of, for example font-size:
10px; ?

> In the "CSS is a car" analogy, I would say that, you need a driver license
> to drive a car (because it's powerful and dangerous) but you don't need a
> license to use the powerful and dangerous CSS. Imagine if 3 years old
> children were allowed to drive a car without license?
Even if you have a CSS license you can easily go wrong.

> > It's my opinion that the underlying problem is somewhere closer to the
> > tool being too complex. You may have a different opinion, and that's
> > fine.

> The tool is being too complex (because it's powerful), which implies:
> 1) That IE don't support it.
So that means that more than half of all Internet users don't support
it.
http://www.w3schools.com/browsers/browsers_stats.asp

> 2) That most web developers don't use it correctly.
And depending on which web developer you speak to, he/she will tell
you a different thing about how CSS should be used.
And that applies to even the most basic concepts

> Note: Purely from a user point-of-view, user CSS (without author CSS) is
> great. If CSS had to be removed from the web then, user CSS should have to
> be kept.
That makes more sense.

Chris F.A. Johnson

06-17-2008, 02:50

On 2007-11-10, 1001 Webs wrote:
> On Nov 10, 7:20 pm, "André Gillibert"
....
>> But, most CSS developers are highly ignorant, and have fundamentally wrong
>> design principles, such as "it should render identically eveywhere".
>
> I fail to see what's "fundamentally wrong" with that.

It is impossible, that's why.

> It is a basic graphic design principle.

For paper, perhaps. On the Web, you _cannot_ know exactly how a
page will look in every browser, not even in all copies of the
same browser.

> When you design a magazine or newspaper for example, every page should
> look the same in terms of structure.

The Web is not paper.

> You can play with the headers, image positioning, etc. but all pages
> should follow the same pattern.

Which, on the better sites, they do.

> That's why you use Templates and grids.

Exactly.

>> Bad news: I've to use many web sites that've been designed by ignorant web
>> designers.
>> If CSS didn't exist or was harder to use by bad web designers, I wouldn't
>> get all that bad stuff.
> And if CSS was better implemented and was easier to use by every web
> designers, you will get even less bad stuff.

That's like trying to make a car that cannot go through a red light,
that cannot exceed the speed limit, that cannot have a misaligned
mirror, etc.....

>> That's true to a much larger extent for
>> JavaScript. 99% of the JavaScript of the web is harmful or at best useless.
>> I often disable author's CSS, but, unfortunately, there're more and more
>> pages that become hard to read without author's CSS.
>>
>> > While there's some truth to that argument, at some point you need to
>> > be pragmatic. If 99% of the web developers out there are getting it
>> > wrong, maybe the tool needs to be more user friendly.
>>
>> No, it's misused BECAUSE it's too friendly. You don't need to read any
>> spec to use it!
>> e.g. WISYWIG editors worsen the thing.
> I beg to differ.

Differ from what?

> Many of those tags are useless and not recommended,
> so why on Earth are they allowed?

Who is going to disallow them? And how?

There are many tags that are deprecated or not allowed in HTML
4.01, for example, but browsers still support them because of the
millions of legacy pages on the WWW.

> Could you please tell me what's the use of, for example font-size:
> 10px; ?

To make the text unreadably small (or too large).

>> In the "CSS is a car" analogy, I would say that, you need a driver license
>> to drive a car (because it's powerful and dangerous) but you don't need a
>> license to use the powerful and dangerous CSS. Imagine if 3 years old
>> children were allowed to drive a car without license?
> Even if you have a CSS license you can easily go wrong.

Just as in a car.

....

--
Chris F.A. Johnson, webmaster <http://Woodbine-Gerrard.com>
================================================== =================
Author:
Shell Scripting Recipes: A Problem-Solution Approach (2005, Apress)

Jonathan N. Little

06-17-2008, 02:50

1001 Webs wrote:
> On Nov 10, 7:20 pm, "André Gillibert"
> <tabkanDELETETHIS...@yahodeletethato.fr> wrote:

>> There's a difference between C++ and CSS.
>> Most C++ developers are somehow trained and produce quite correct
>> applications.
>> But, most CSS developers are highly ignorant, and have fundamentally wrong
>> design principles, such as "it should render identically eveywhere".
> I fail to see what's "fundamentally wrong" with that.
> It is a basic graphic design principle.
> When you design a magazine or newspaper for example, every page should
> look the same in terms of structure.
> You can play with the headers, image positioning, etc. but all pages
> should follow the same pattern.
> That's why you use Templates and grids.

Ah! But that reveals the root of your error concerning web design and I
am an artist and graphic designer. The web is not paper. An overused
statement but none the less true. With magazines, newspapers, posters,
or whatever, there is one constant...the paper. As the designer in such
media the "viewport", the dimensions of the piece of paper, is known and
unchanging. It is is integrally part of the design process, if you are
any good ;-) You have a static canvas upon which to build your design.

With a webpage you have no such constants, no matter how much you (the
big universal 'you') wish to deny it. Holding you breath. Tantrums on
the floor. Jumping and screaming will not change that fundamental fact
that if the content is on the web, as the designer, you have no control
over the size of the viewport used by the users. Additionally, nor what
fonts your page is rendered in. Or in what color depth your images with
display or if your image will be seen at all! Or even if your text is
displayed at all for it might be a screen reader.

Now you can try and make your page "work" only for the parameters that
you have narrowly defined hence making it difficult for conditions
outside your constraints. But all that will accomplish is deny access,
"closing the book" for some users that might have been potential
customers, which is usually contrary to the original purpose of
"publishing" the page on the Web.

--
Take care,

Jonathan
-------------------
LITTLE WORKS STUDIO
http://www.LittleWorksStudio.com

Jerry Stuckle

06-17-2008, 02:50

Chris F.A. Johnson wrote:
> On 2007-11-10, 1001 Webs wrote:
>> On Nov 10, 7:20 pm, "André Gillibert"
> ...
>>> But, most CSS developers are highly ignorant, and have fundamentally wrong
>>> design principles, such as "it should render identically eveywhere".
>> I fail to see what's "fundamentally wrong" with that.
>
> It is impossible, that's why.
>
>> It is a basic graphic design principle.
>
> For paper, perhaps. On the Web, you _cannot_ know exactly how a
> page will look in every browser, not even in all copies of the
> same browser.
>
>> When you design a magazine or newspaper for example, every page should
>> look the same in terms of structure.
>
> The Web is not paper.
>
>> You can play with the headers, image positioning, etc. but all pages
>> should follow the same pattern.
>
> Which, on the better sites, they do.
>
>> That's why you use Templates and grids.
>
> Exactly.
>
>>> Bad news: I've to use many web sites that've been designed by ignorant web
>>> designers.
>>> If CSS didn't exist or was harder to use by bad web designers, I wouldn't
>>> get all that bad stuff.
>> And if CSS was better implemented and was easier to use by every web
>> designers, you will get even less bad stuff.
>
> That's like trying to make a car that cannot go through a red light,
> that cannot exceed the speed limit, that cannot have a misaligned
> mirror, etc.....
>
>>> That's true to a much larger extent for
>>> JavaScript. 99% of the JavaScript of the web is harmful or at best useless.
>>> I often disable author's CSS, but, unfortunately, there're more and more
>>> pages that become hard to read without author's CSS.
>>>
>>>> While there's some truth to that argument, at some point you need to
>>>> be pragmatic. If 99% of the web developers out there are getting it
>>>> wrong, maybe the tool needs to be more user friendly.
>>> No, it's misused BECAUSE it's too friendly. You don't need to read any
>>> spec to use it!
>>> e.g. WISYWIG editors worsen the thing.
>> I beg to differ.
>
> Differ from what?
>
>> Many of those tags are useless and not recommended,
>> so why on Earth are they allowed?
>
> Who is going to disallow them? And how?
>
> There are many tags that are deprecated or not allowed in HTML
> 4.01, for example, but browsers still support them because of the
> millions of legacy pages on the WWW.
>
>> Could you please tell me what's the use of, for example font-size:
>> 10px; ?
>
> To make the text unreadably small (or too large).
>
>>> In the "CSS is a car" analogy, I would say that, you need a driver license
>>> to drive a car (because it's powerful and dangerous) but you don't need a
>>> license to use the powerful and dangerous CSS. Imagine if 3 years old
>>> children were allowed to drive a car without license?
>> Even if you have a CSS license you can easily go wrong.
>
> Just as in a car.
>
> ...
>

Forget it, Chris. He has absolutely no idea what he's talking about and
is just trying to raise hell. My recommendation is to ignore any of his
posts.

And maybe one of these days his mommy will find out what he's doing and
take his computer away from him.

--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.
jstucklex@attglobal.net
==================

Jerry Stuckle

06-17-2008, 02:50

Jonathan N. Little wrote:
> 1001 Webs wrote:
>> On Nov 10, 7:20 pm, "André Gillibert"
>> <tabkanDELETETHIS...@yahodeletethato.fr> wrote:
>
>>> There's a difference between C++ and CSS.
>>> Most C++ developers are somehow trained and produce quite correct
>>> applications.
>>> But, most CSS developers are highly ignorant, and have fundamentally
>>> wrong
>>> design principles, such as "it should render identically eveywhere".
>> I fail to see what's "fundamentally wrong" with that.
>> It is a basic graphic design principle.
>> When you design a magazine or newspaper for example, every page should
>> look the same in terms of structure.
>> You can play with the headers, image positioning, etc. but all pages
>> should follow the same pattern.
>> That's why you use Templates and grids.
>
> Ah! But that reveals the root of your error concerning web design and I
> am an artist and graphic designer. The web is not paper. An overused
> statement but none the less true. With magazines, newspapers, posters,
> or whatever, there is one constant...the paper. As the designer in such
> media the "viewport", the dimensions of the piece of paper, is known and
> unchanging. It is is integrally part of the design process, if you are
> any good ;-) You have a static canvas upon which to build your design.
>
> With a webpage you have no such constants, no matter how much you (the
> big universal 'you') wish to deny it. Holding you breath. Tantrums on
> the floor. Jumping and screaming will not change that fundamental fact
> that if the content is on the web, as the designer, you have no control
> over the size of the viewport used by the users. Additionally, nor what
> fonts your page is rendered in. Or in what color depth your images with
> display or if your image will be seen at all! Or even if your text is
> displayed at all for it might be a screen reader.
>
> Now you can try and make your page "work" only for the parameters that
> you have narrowly defined hence making it difficult for conditions
> outside your constraints. But all that will accomplish is deny access,
> "closing the book" for some users that might have been potential
> customers, which is usually contrary to the original purpose of
> "publishing" the page on the Web.
>

Ah, Jonathan, but you don't understand him. He claims he's a graphics
designer. But the only real proof he has presented is the idea he can
control every aspect of the visitor's experience. But then again, that
is normal for poor graphic designers. They have to control the
experience, instead of enhancing it.

--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.
jstucklex@attglobal.net
==================

Jonathan N. Little

06-17-2008, 02:50

Jerry Stuckle wrote:

>
> Ah, Jonathan, but you don't understand him. He claims he's a graphics
> designer. But the only real proof he has presented is the idea he can
> control every aspect of the visitor's experience. But then again, that
> is normal for poor graphic designers. They have to control the
> experience, instead of enhancing it.
>

Unfortunately I do understand him. It is a pervasive and problematic
attitude among many who claim to be web designers. I was only hoping to
give one last shot at having him consider a different perspective on
"how the web works".

--
Take care,

Jonathan
-------------------
LITTLE WORKS STUDIO
http://www.LittleWorksStudio.com

1001 Webs

06-17-2008, 02:50

On Nov 10, 11:33 pm, "Jonathan N. Little" <lws4...@centralva.net>
wrote:
> 1001 Webs wrote:
> > On Nov 10, 7:20 pm, "André Gillibert"
> > <tabkanDELETETHIS...@yahodeletethato.fr> wrote:
> >> There's a difference between C++ and CSS.
> >> Most C++ developers are somehow trained and produce quite correct
> >> applications.
> >> But, most CSS developers are highly ignorant, and have fundamentally wrong
> >> design principles, such as "it should render identically eveywhere".
> > I fail to see what's "fundamentally wrong" with that.
> > It is a basic graphic design principle.
> > When you design a magazine or newspaper for example, every page should
> > look the same in terms of structure.
> > You can play with the headers, image positioning, etc. but all pages
> > should follow the same pattern.
> > That's why you use Templates and grids.
>
> Ah! But that reveals the root of your error concerning web design and I
> am an artist and graphic designer. The web is not paper. An overused
> statement but none the less true. With magazines, newspapers, posters,
> or whatever, there is one constant...the paper. As the designer in such
> media the "viewport", the dimensions of the piece of paper, is known and
> unchanging. It is is integrally part of the design process, if you are
> any good ;-) You have a static canvas upon which to build your design.
>
> With a webpage you have no such constants, no matter how much you (the
> big universal 'you') wish to deny it. Holding you breath. Tantrums on
> the floor. Jumping and screaming will not change that fundamental fact
> that if the content is on the web, as the designer, you have no control
> over the size of the viewport used by the users. Additionally, nor what
> fonts your page is rendered in. Or in what color depth your images with
> display or if your image will be seen at all! Or even if your text is
> displayed at all for it might be a screen reader.
>
> Now you can try and make your page "work" only for the parameters that
> you have narrowly defined hence making it difficult for conditions
> outside your constraints. But all that will accomplish is deny access,
> "closing the book" for some users that might have been potential
> customers, which is usually contrary to the original purpose of
> "publishing" the page on the Web.

Then, the way I see it, percentages are the only parameters that
should be ever used, at least from a graphic designer's point of view.

Since you are a Graphic Designer I assume you know about basic
principles of Graphic Design, such as Balance, Rhythm, Proportion,
Unity, etc.
I assume that you also know how to apply the Rule of Thirds by which
you divide the working area with a grid of nine sections with two
evenly spaced vertical lines and two evenly spaced horizontal lines.
The only way to do that in a flexible way, would be using percentages.
And since percentages are also the only measurement that works well
for other tags, such as font-sizing, that's the only attribute should
be used under any circumstances.

No one tells you about this, you know, not even w3.org. If you have a
look at their very own style sheet, http://www.w3.org/StyleSheets/home-import.css,
you'll see things like:
font-size: small;
margin-bottom: 0.3em;
margin-top: -6px;
etc.

And that's precisely my point, that CSS is confusing, hard to learn
for the wrong reasons, frustrating and badly implemented.
And that's NOT the designer's fault

Kevin

06-17-2008, 02:50

On Nov 11, 6:43 am, 1001 Webs <1001w...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Nov 10, 11:33 pm, "Jonathan N. Little" <lws4...@centralva.net>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> > 1001 Webs wrote:
> > > On Nov 10, 7:20 pm, "André Gillibert"
> > > <tabkanDELETETHIS...@yahodeletethato.fr> wrote:
> > >> There's a difference between C++ and CSS.
> > >> Most C++ developers are somehow trained and produce quite correct
> > >> applications.
> > >> But, most CSS developers are highly ignorant, and have fundamentallywrong
> > >> design principles, such as "it should render identically eveywhere".
> > > I fail to see what's "fundamentally wrong" with that.
> > > It is a basic graphic design principle.
> > > When you design a magazine or newspaper for example, every page should
> > > look the same in terms of structure.
> > > You can play with the headers, image positioning, etc. but all pages
> > > should follow the same pattern.
> > > That's why you use Templates and grids.
>
> > Ah! But that reveals the root of your error concerning web design and I
> > am an artist and graphic designer. The web is not paper. An overused
> > statement but none the less true. With magazines, newspapers, posters,
> > or whatever, there is one constant...the paper. As the designer in such
> > media the "viewport", the dimensions of the piece of paper, is known and
> > unchanging. It is is integrally part of the design process, if you are
> > any good ;-) You have a static canvas upon which to build your design.
>
> > With a webpage you have no such constants, no matter how much you (the
> > big universal 'you') wish to deny it. Holding you breath. Tantrums on
> > the floor. Jumping and screaming will not change that fundamental fact
> > that if the content is on the web, as the designer, you have no control
> > over the size of the viewport used by the users. Additionally, nor what
> > fonts your page is rendered in. Or in what color depth your images with
> > display or if your image will be seen at all! Or even if your text is
> > displayed at all for it might be a screen reader.
>
> > Now you can try and make your page "work" only for the parameters that
> > you have narrowly defined hence making it difficult for conditions
> > outside your constraints. But all that will accomplish is deny access,
> > "closing the book" for some users that might have been potential
> > customers, which is usually contrary to the original purpose of
> > "publishing" the page on the Web.
>
> Then, the way I see it, percentages are the only parameters that
> should be ever used, at least from a graphic designer's point of view.
>
> Since you are a Graphic Designer I assume you know about basic
> principles of Graphic Design, such as Balance, Rhythm, Proportion,
> Unity, etc.
> I assume that you also know how to apply the Rule of Thirds by which
> you divide the working area with a grid of nine sections with two
> evenly spaced vertical lines and two evenly spaced horizontal lines.
> The only way to do that in a flexible way, would be using percentages.
> And since percentages are also the only measurement that works well
> for other tags, such as font-sizing, that's the only attribute should
> be used under any circumstances.
>
> No one tells you about this, you know, not even w3.org. If you have a
> look at their very own style sheet,http://www.w3.org/StyleSheets/home-import.css,
> you'll see things like:
> font-size: small;
> margin-bottom: 0.3em;
> margin-top: -6px;
> etc.
>
> And that's precisely my point, that CSS is confusing, hard to learn
> for the wrong reasons, frustrating and badly implemented.
> And that's NOT the designer's fault

Ok I am so tired of reading all the same topics and arguments on
forums and groups as to why write to the international standard. Why
use CSS instead of tables. The list goes on and on. The postings tend
to do one thing they separate the Professionals from the want to be
professional web designers and developers in general. You can read
peoples postings and determine their level of competency when it comes
to css and HTML or XHTML.

Almost always it comes up that the standards are only suggested
guidelines as well. If it was a matter of only being suggested we
would not have corporations here in America such as Target that are
being sued in multi million dollar class action lawsuits for not being
compliant.

I ran across a neat document online published by the W3C I believe it
would benefit everyone here to read. It does not say anything about
suggestions it does say requirements though several times.

http://www.w3.org/QA/2002/07/WebAgency-Requirements

I think that part of the problem is so many people out there claim to
be web designers and developers which indicates an advanced level of
expertise in coding which they do not possess. A great example of that
is the field of graphic arts. Have you ever asked yourself when if
ever you found a Graphic Artist that did not advertise themselves as
being a web designer or developer? That decision is not made by their
skill level at coding is is solely made on their abilities to work
with pictures.

There are very few people that possess the ability to do all three
things you need in a successful website. A successful website needs to
be appealing to the eye (graphic arts), contain great content
(professional copy writing) that is keyword rich and solid
professional coding and programming.

1001 Webs

06-17-2008, 02:50

On Nov 11, 1:56 pm, Kevin <kevinlen...@lakeareawebs.com> wrote:
> On Nov 11, 6:43 am, 1001 Webs <1001w...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Nov 10, 11:33 pm, "Jonathan N. Little" <lws4...@centralva.net>
> > wrote:
>
> > > 1001 Webs wrote:
> > > > On Nov 10, 7:20 pm, "André Gillibert"
> > > > <tabkanDELETETHIS...@yahodeletethato.fr> wrote:
> > > >> There's a difference between C++ and CSS.
> > > >> Most C++ developers are somehow trained and produce quite correct
> > > >> applications.
> > > >> But, most CSS developers are highly ignorant, and have fundamentally wrong
> > > >> design principles, such as "it should render identically eveywhere".
> > > > I fail to see what's "fundamentally wrong" with that.
> > > > It is a basic graphic design principle.
> > > > When you design a magazine or newspaper for example, every page should
> > > > look the same in terms of structure.
> > > > You can play with the headers, image positioning, etc. but all pages
> > > > should follow the same pattern.
> > > > That's why you use Templates and grids.
>
> > > Ah! But that reveals the root of your error concerning web design andI
> > > am an artist and graphic designer. The web is not paper. An overused
> > > statement but none the less true. With magazines, newspapers, posters,
> > > or whatever, there is one constant...the paper. As the designer in such
> > > media the "viewport", the dimensions of the piece of paper, is known and
> > > unchanging. It is is integrally part of the design process, if you are
> > > any good ;-) You have a static canvas upon which to build your design.
>
> > > With a webpage you have no such constants, no matter how much you (the
> > > big universal 'you') wish to deny it. Holding you breath. Tantrums on
> > > the floor. Jumping and screaming will not change that fundamental fact
> > > that if the content is on the web, as the designer, you have no control
> > > over the size of the viewport used by the users. Additionally, nor what
> > > fonts your page is rendered in. Or in what color depth your images with
> > > display or if your image will be seen at all! Or even if your text is
> > > displayed at all for it might be a screen reader.
>
> > > Now you can try and make your page "work" only for the parameters that
> > > you have narrowly defined hence making it difficult for conditions
> > > outside your constraints. But all that will accomplish is deny access,
> > > "closing the book" for some users that might have been potential
> > > customers, which is usually contrary to the original purpose of
> > > "publishing" the page on the Web.
>
> > Then, the way I see it, percentages are the only parameters that
> > should be ever used, at least from a graphic designer's point of view.
>
> > Since you are a Graphic Designer I assume you know about basic
> > principles of Graphic Design, such as Balance, Rhythm, Proportion,
> > Unity, etc.
> > I assume that you also know how to apply the Rule of Thirds by which
> > you divide the working area with a grid of nine sections with two
> > evenly spaced vertical lines and two evenly spaced horizontal lines.
> > The only way to do that in a flexible way, would be using percentages.
> > And since percentages are also the only measurement that works well
> > for other tags, such as font-sizing, that's the only attribute should
> > be used under any circumstances.
>
> > No one tells you about this, you know, not even w3.org. If you have a
> > look at their very own style sheet,http://www.w3.org/StyleSheets/home-import.css,
> > you'll see things like:
> > font-size: small;
> > margin-bottom: 0.3em;
> > margin-top: -6px;
> > etc.
>
> > And that's precisely my point, that CSS is confusing, hard to learn
> > for the wrong reasons, frustrating and badly implemented.
> > And that's NOT the designer's fault
>
> Ok I am so tired of reading all the same topics and arguments on
> forums and groups as to why write to the international standard. Why
> use CSS instead of tables. The list goes on and on. The postings tend
> to do one thing they separate the Professionals from the want to be
> professional web designers and developers in general. You can read
> peoples postings and determine their level of competency when it comes
> to css and HTML or XHTML.
>
> Almost always it comes up that the standards are only suggested
> guidelines as well. If it was a matter of only being suggested we
> would not have corporations here in America such as Target that are
> being sued in multi million dollar class action lawsuits for not being
> compliant.
>
> I ran across a neat document online published by the W3C I believe it
> would benefit everyone here to read. It does not say anything about
> suggestions it does say requirements though several times.
>
> http://www.w3.org/QA/2002/07/WebAgency-Requirements
Requirements such as "Use SVG and PNG for graphics"
and "Use techniques to make your content accessible"
http://www.w3.org/WAI/Resources/#te
How many web developers that you know of fulfill those requirements?

> I think that part of the problem is so many people out there claim to
> be web designers and developers which indicates an advanced level of
> expertise in coding which they do not possess. A great example of that
> is the field of graphic arts. Have you ever asked yourself when if
> ever you found a Graphic Artist that did not advertise themselves as
> being a web designer or developer? That decision is not made by their
> skill level at coding is is solely made on their abilities to work
> with pictures.
Funny, because I've met far more many webmasters claiming to be
Graphic Designers as well.

> There are very few people that possess the ability to do all three
> things you need in a successful website. A successful website needs to
> be appealing to the eye (graphic arts), contain great content
> (professional copy writing) that is keyword rich and solid
> professional coding and programming.
Agreed.

Chris F.A. Johnson

06-17-2008, 02:50

On 2007-11-11, 1001 Webs wrote:
....
> Then, the way I see it, percentages are the only parameters that
> should be ever used, at least from a graphic designer's point of view.

If that's all you use, why should the availability of other
measures concern you?

....
> I assume that you also know how to apply the Rule of Thirds by which
> you divide the working area with a grid of nine sections with two
> evenly spaced vertical lines and two evenly spaced horizontal lines.
> The only way to do that in a flexible way, would be using percentages.

You are still thinking paper. Yes, you can use evenly spaced
vertical lines; you cannot use evenly spaced horizontal lines.

The Rule of Thirds is one of many grids that work for design on
paper. You cannot reduce graphic design to a single formula (even
on paper).

> And since percentages are also the only measurement that works well
> for other tags, such as font-sizing, that's the only attribute should
> be used under any circumstances.

For font sizes and column widths, ems also work well, and
sometimes better. Often the best solution is a width set in
percent and a min-width in ems.

> No one tells you about this, you know, not even w3.org. If you have a
> look at their very own style sheet, http://www.w3.org/StyleSheets/home-import.css,
> you'll see things like:
> font-size: small;
> margin-bottom: 0.3em;
> margin-top: -6px;
> etc.

What's wrong with that? (BTW, which page uses that stylesheet?)

> And that's precisely my point, that CSS is confusing, hard to learn
> for the wrong reasons, frustrating and badly implemented.
> And that's NOT the designer's fault

It _is_ the designer's fault if he codes badly. If you think that
only percentages should be used, whose fault is it if you use
other measures as well?

--
Chris F.A. Johnson, webmaster <http://Woodbine-Gerrard.com>
================================================== =================
Author:
Shell Scripting Recipes: A Problem-Solution Approach (2005, Apress)

1001 Webs

06-17-2008, 02:50

On Nov 11, 5:14 pm, "Chris F.A. Johnson" <cfajohn...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 2007-11-11, 1001 Webs wrote:
> ...
>
> > Then, the way I see it, percentages are the only parameters that
> > should be ever used, at least from a graphic designer's point of view.
>
> If that's all you use, why should the availability of other
> measures concern you?
Because I had been using them an they didn't produce the results that
I expected.
It's kind of frustrating when that happens to you, you know?

> > I assume that you also know how to apply the Rule of Thirds by which
> > you divide the working area with a grid of nine sections with two
> > evenly spaced vertical lines and two evenly spaced horizontal lines.
> > The only way to do that in a flexible way, would be using percentages.
>
> You are still thinking paper. Yes, you can use evenly spaced
> vertical lines; you cannot use evenly spaced horizontal lines.
Why not?
You can set a guide at 30% of the height of the page, can't you?

> The Rule of Thirds is one of many grids that work for design on
> paper. You cannot reduce graphic design to a single formula (even
> on paper).
It was just an example.
BTW, the Rule of Thirds works even better for Video

> > And since percentages are also the only measurement that works well
> > for other tags, such as font-sizing, that's the only attribute should
> > be used under any circumstances.
>
> For font sizes and column widths, ems also work well, and
> sometimes better. Often the best solution is a width set in
> percent and a min-width in ems.
>
> > No one tells you about this, you know, not even w3.org. If you have a
> > look at their very own style sheet,http://www.w3.org/StyleSheets/home-import.css,
> > you'll see things like:
> > font-size: small;
> > margin-bottom: 0.3em;
> > margin-top: -6px;
> > etc.
>
> What's wrong with that?
Pixels and ems that don't render equally across different browsers.

> (BTW, which page uses that stylesheet?)
Their very own front page:
http://www.w3.org

> > And that's precisely my point, that CSS is confusing, hard to learn
> > for the wrong reasons, frustrating and badly implemented.
> > And that's NOT the designer's fault
>
> It _is_ the designer's fault if he codes badly. If you think that
> only percentages should be used, whose fault is it if you use
> other measures as well?
My mistake seems to be then trusting the developers at http://www.w3.org

Jonathan N. Little

06-17-2008, 02:50

1001 Webs wrote:
> On Nov 10, 11:33 pm, "Jonathan N. Little" <lws4...@centralva.net>
> wrote:

> Then, the way I see it, percentages are the only parameters that
> should be ever used, at least from a graphic designer's point of view.
>

No I wouldn't say that. I would say it depends on the design criteria.

If th block is containing a fixed element, i.e. an image then I would
tend to use "px" and make the adjacent block fill the space. If it must
also contain text, then I would make sure that the text wrap will work
okay. Usually it is not friendly to scaling the text, but should
accommodate some range without breaking.

If the block is a menu, or a pull quote with limited text and the
words-per-line is part of the design then "em" would be my choice. That
way the block will scale with the text, and since this this type of
situations the block is also floated, I let the regular body text fill
the available space.

If the design has visual regions, like a 2/3 to 1/3 side bar column then
"%" may be my choice. Some folks like to use "%" for headers with logos
and footers, but personally I prefer em's and link the height to the
text scale unless the logo is a fixed graphic.

I guess my point is there is no "written in stone" rule which to use.
But, and this is a big one, web design is a flexible no fixed canvas and
your design should take that into consideration. Too many sites are
"designs in denial" and unnecessarily fail with accessibility.

If you find yourself stuck with a fixed design element, I say stop and
think. Is there another way to approach the design that would no
required the box. Many, many times the answer is yes,

> Since you are a Graphic Designer I assume you know about basic
> principles of Graphic Design, such as Balance, Rhythm, Proportion,
> Unity, etc.
> I assume that you also know how to apply the Rule of Thirds by which
> you divide the working area with a grid of nine sections with two
> evenly spaced vertical lines and two evenly spaced horizontal lines.
> The only way to do that in a flexible way, would be using percentages.
> And since percentages are also the only measurement that works well
> for other tags, such as font-sizing, that's the only attribute should
> be used under any circumstances.
>
> No one tells you about this, you know, not even w3.org. If you have a
> look at their very own style sheet, http://www.w3.org/StyleSheets/home-import.css,
> you'll see things like:
> font-size: small;
> margin-bottom: 0.3em;
> margin-top: -6px;
> etc.

Yes you will for minor topical text like: p.hpmt-testimonial. You do not
see: body { font-size: small; }. No one here is suggestion that you
*never* use small font sizes, the crime is using it for your base font
size!

>
> And that's precisely my point, that CSS is confusing, hard to learn
> for the wrong reasons, frustrating and badly implemented.
> And that's NOT the designer's fault
>

Actually the bulk of it is not. Floats are the sticking point, and
having to deal with the badly broken IE browser is not helping. Also it
is a developing technology and will change. Bbut I can say this, if you
properly separate your presentation with CSS from your markup HTML then
when the changes come and IE begrudgingly follows you should *only* have
to change your stylesheet to transform a whole website. This is NOT the
case with table-layouts and embedded presentational attributes and
elements within the design. Ask anyone who has had to update vintage
DHTML 90's website!

--
Take care,

Jonathan
-------------------
LITTLE WORKS STUDIO
http://www.LittleWorksStudio.com

1001 Webs

06-17-2008, 02:50

On Nov 11, 6:59 pm, "Jonathan N. Little" <lws4...@centralva.net>
wrote:
> 1001 Webs wrote:
> > On Nov 10, 11:33 pm, "Jonathan N. Little" <lws4...@centralva.net>
> > wrote:
> > Then, the way I see it, percentages are the only parameters that
> > should be ever used, at least from a graphic designer's point of view.
>
> No I wouldn't say that. I would say it depends on the design criteria.
>
> If th block is containing a fixed element, i.e. an image then I would
> tend to use "px" and make the adjacent block fill the space. If it must
> also contain text, then I would make sure that the text wrap will work
> okay. Usually it is not friendly to scaling the text, but should
> accommodate some range without breaking.
>
> If the block is a menu, or a pull quote with limited text and the
> words-per-line is part of the design then "em" would be my choice. That
> way the block will scale with the text, and since this this type of
> situations the block is also floated, I let the regular body text fill
> the available space.
>
> If the design has visual regions, like a 2/3 to 1/3 side bar column then
> "%" may be my choice. Some folks like to use "%" for headers with logos
> and footers, but personally I prefer em's and link the height to the
> text scale unless the logo is a fixed graphic.

I have to say that this has to be the most illustrating explanation I
have read so far on how to use the different parameters.

Thank you.

> I guess my point is there is no "written in stone" rule which to use.
> But, and this is a big one, web design is a flexible no fixed canvas and
> your design should take that into consideration. Too many sites are
> "designs in denial" and unnecessarily fail with accessibility.
>
> If you find yourself stuck with a fixed design element, I say stop and
> think. Is there another way to approach the design that would no
> required the box. Many, many times the answer is yes,
>
>
>
> > Since you are a Graphic Designer I assume you know about basic
> > principles of Graphic Design, such as Balance, Rhythm, Proportion,
> > Unity, etc.
> > I assume that you also know how to apply the Rule of Thirds by which
> > you divide the working area with a grid of nine sections with two
> > evenly spaced vertical lines and two evenly spaced horizontal lines.
> > The only way to do that in a flexible way, would be using percentages.
> > And since percentages are also the only measurement that works well
> > for other tags, such as font-sizing, that's the only attribute should
> > be used under any circumstances.
>
> > No one tells you about this, you know, not even w3.org. If you have a
> > look at their very own style sheet,http://www.w3.org/StyleSheets/home-import.css,
> > you'll see things like:
> > font-size: small;
> > margin-bottom: 0.3em;
> > margin-top: -6px;
> > etc.
>
> Yes you will for minor topical text like: p.hpmt-testimonial. You do not
> see: body { font-size: small; }. No one here is suggestion that you
> *never* use small font sizes, the crime is using it for your base font
> size!
>
>
>
> > And that's precisely my point, that CSS is confusing, hard to learn
> > for the wrong reasons, frustrating and badly implemented.
> > And that's NOT the designer's fault
>
> Actually the bulk of it is not. Floats are the sticking point, and
> having to deal with the badly broken IE browser is not helping. Also it
> is a developing technology and will change. Bbut I can say this, if you
> properly separate your presentation with CSS from your markup HTML then
> when the changes come and IE begrudgingly follows you should *only* have
> to change your stylesheet to transform a whole website. This is NOT the
> case with table-layouts and embedded presentational attributes and
> elements within the design. Ask anyone who has had to update vintage
> DHTML 90's website!
>
> --
> Take care,
>
> Jonathan
> -------------------
> LITTLE WORKS STUDIOhttp://www.LittleWorksStudio.com

Bergamot

06-17-2008, 02:50

1001 Webs wrote:
>
> Pixels and ems that don't render equally across different browsers.

Neither of those have anything to do with the browser.

Pixel sizes are determined by the individual screen settings, not the
browser. Em sizes are determined by the font being used.

Both are set (consciously or not) by the individual user, as it should be.

--
Berg

Travis Newbury

06-17-2008, 02:50

On Nov 10, 5:33 pm, "Jonathan N. Little" <lws4...@centralva.net>
wrote:
> 1001 Webs wrote:
> > On Nov 10, 7:20 pm, "André Gillibert"
> > <tabkanDELETETHIS...@yahodeletethato.fr> wrote:
> >> There's a difference between C++ and CSS.
> >> Most C++ developers are somehow trained and produce quite correct
> >> applications.
> >> But, most CSS developers are highly ignorant, and have fundamentally wrong
> >> design principles, such as "it should render identically eveywhere".
> > I fail to see what's "fundamentally wrong" with that.
> > It is a basic graphic design principle.
> > When you design a magazine or newspaper for example, every page should
> > look the same in terms of structure.
> > You can play with the headers, image positioning, etc. but all pages
> > should follow the same pattern.
> > That's why you use Templates and grids.
>
> Ah! But that reveals the root of your error concerning web design and I
> am an artist and graphic designer. The web is not paper.

This is where we disagree, while you are right, the web is not paper,
the fact is there is nothing wrong with designing a web page so it
tried to simulate a structured design. Just a different way to design
for the web. Neither design style is any more right or wrong than any
other.

I can easily design a flexible design. But sometime I want a specific
look and feel to the page. And while it may not work on everyone's
configuration, I am confident that the visitors that fall out because
they can't see it is statistically insignificant when the designer
knows the audience.