469,342 Members | 6,653 Online
Bytes | Developer Community
New Post

Home Posts Topics Members FAQ

Post your question to a community of 469,342 developers. It's quick & easy.

Opinion: Do web standards matter?

Just out of curiosity, while checking on a site I was working on, I
decided to throw a couple of the web's most popular URLs into the W3C
Markup Validator.

Out of microsoft.com, google.com, amazon.com, yahoo.com, aol.com, and
mozilla.org, only Mozilla's site came back "Valid HTML".

So if all these places, with their teams of web developers don't seem to
care, should the rest of us small time web devs concern ourselves with
standards? I do, but sometimes I feel it's a wasted effort. What do yinz
think?

P.S. Slashdot returned a 403 Forbidden to the validator but when I saved
the homepage locally, it failed too.
--
[ Sugapablo ]
[ http://www.sugapablo.net <--personal | http://www.sugapablo.com <--music ]
[ http://www.2ra.org <--political | http://www.subuse.net <--discuss ]

http://www.subuse.net : text-only, low bandwidth, anonymous web forums
Jul 23 '05
250 9108
Travis Newbury wrote:
kchayka wrote:
I drink to flexibility of design.
And to hell with people who make their browser full screen!

What's the point of having a full-size window if you aren't going to use it?


Because I prefer it that way, and it is my browser. And don't you
always say leave my browser preferences alone? Or does that only
include the preferences you think are important (say pop-ups or your
scroll bar)?


Hmmm... You want a full-size browser window, but for some reason you
don't want to use all of the available space to show web pages? If
that's what you really want to do, fine, but it seems silly to me.

I, as an author, would do my part to prevent excessively long lines of
text by setting a max-width on paragraphs (~40em), but if your browser
doesn't support that property, you're just out of luck. I am adamently
opposed to fixing the width just because some people use a deficient
browser. Sorry.

I also think it's unreasonable to expect a web author to fix the layout
width to accomodate a few people who do silly things with their browser.

--
Reply email address is a bottomless spam bucket.
Please reply to the group so everyone can share.
Jul 24 '05 #151

"Jan Roland Eriksson" <jr****@newsguy.com> wrote in message
news:l2********************************@4ax.com...
On Thu, 31 Mar 2005 14:58:58 GMT, "c.thornquist"
<c.**********@insightbb.com> wrote:
"Alan J. Flavell" <fl*****@ph.gla.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:Pi******************************@ppepc56.ph .gla.ac.uk...

On Thu, 31 Mar 2005, c.thornquist wrote: [...] What's wrong with 100% width on a 19" monitor set at 1024 X 768? Too wide for comfortable reading at normal font sizes.

Not if the author broke up the text into columns;)


Well, it seems that you may want to really grasp the fact that the WWW
is originally designed to provide the user with the ultimate final
control of presentation.

An analogy; if you find that a TV-show comes through with the sound set
too loud for your liking I would assume that you do /not/ call the TV
station to tell them to lower the volume?
You would do that locally on your own set, right?

Properly authored www pages will allow you to have that final control.

Major parts of the following was once written by a highly regarded CSS
designer...

<http://www.css.nu/articles/font-analogy.html>

...it still illustrates most of today's www situation.

Now; some well known (so called) browser makes it very hard to exercise
that "users ultimate final control" but it seems unfair to blame that
"defect" on how correctly authored CSS sites are delivered.

--
Rex


If I create a painting & you don't like where I've placed some brushstrokes
or the colors I've used or the size of it, should you be allowed to
rearrange it to your liking?

What if the canvas was stretched on a cheap, prefab from the five & dime
store. I didn't build it myself with high quality materials & excellent
workmanship. Still, the painting is spectacular. Imagine if it would not be
allowed in a juried show or to be viewed/sold in a gallery because of the
shoddy underside.

Re the sound level on TV sets, enough people were annoyed with having to
make adjustments, that remote controls come with most TVs today. The browser
developers will do the same for websites & site visitors, because it's to
their benefit financially.

Re the length of text on a screen. It's analogous to newspapers, magazines
or books using one huge page with no columns. Wouldn't that be fun to read?

Re font size & how it's displayed, I haven't seen great variation. And the
Dollar Store sells reading glasses for $5.00.
Carla
Jul 24 '05 #152

"Steve Pugh" <st***@pugh.net> wrote in message
news:3e********************************@4ax.com...
"c.thornquist" <c.**********@insightbb.com> wrote:
How does one implement a user stylesheet when browsing?


Write a stylesheet that you would like applied to all sites (pay
attention to section 6.4.1 of the CSS 2 spec to understand how your
styles and the authors styles will combine).


Thanks much:)

Carla
Jul 24 '05 #153
On Thu, 31 Mar 2005 22:29:48 GMT, "c.thornquist"
<c.**********@insightbb.com> wrote:
[...]
And saving your files with certain extensions.


File name extensions has no relevance on the www.

FN-extensions are relics that has managed to survive, and totally
confuse web authors and users for all too long.

On the www the HTTP protocol defines an HTTP "Content-type" header that
is supposed to tell your browser what kind of content it is about to
receive.

Given correct server config, the all too common .html (or even worse,
the .htm) extension is totally redundant.

Even MSIE understands at least the basics of that part.

--
Rex
Jul 24 '05 #154
Travis Newbury wrote:
Els wrote:
In the flexible case, everybody has any option they like.


I don't. I like full screen, and your content is hard to read that way.


And I don't like fixed designs. I find them hard to read, mostly because
of too-short lines and broken layouts at my larger-than-average text size.

With a flexible layout, I have a very good chance of making the page
comfortably readable, even if I have to adjust my browser window size a
bit to do it. With a fixed layout, I have very little chance of getting
a good result.

--
Reply email address is a bottomless spam bucket.
Please reply to the group so everyone can share.
Jul 24 '05 #155
Jan Roland Eriksson wrote:
Given correct server config, the all too common .html (or even worse,
the .htm) extension is totally redundant.


Well, except to tell the server that a given file should be sent with
Content-Type: text/html...

But yes, I guess you could set your server up to treat all files in a
given directory as HTML, removing the need for the .htm(l) extension.
--
Oli
Jul 24 '05 #156
c.thornquist wrote:

If I create a painting & you don't like where I've placed some brushstrokes
or the colors I've used or the size of it, should you be allowed to
rearrange it to your liking?
You miss the point. A painting is a fixed format; you are in complete
control of size, color, shape, texture, etc. WWW is highly variable; you
control the content, color (usually), and general layout; no control over
size or shape. You are comparing apples with cars and claiming they are
the same thing.
Re the sound level on TV sets, enough people were annoyed with having to
make adjustments, that remote controls come with most TVs today. The browser
The viewer *still controls the volume*! You agree with us after all. :-)
developers will do the same for websites & site visitors, because it's to
their benefit financially.
You are just joshing us, of course. Remote controls for font size? LOL
Re the length of text on a screen. It's analogous to newspapers, magazines
or books using one huge page with no columns. Wouldn't that be fun to read?

Now you are just being silly.

--
jmm dash list (at) sohnen-moe (dot) com
(Remove .AXSPAMGN for email)
Jul 24 '05 #157
On Thu, 31 Mar 2005 22:52:21 GMT, "c.thornquist"
<c.**********@insightbb.com> wrote:
"Jan Roland Eriksson" <jr****@newsguy.com> wrote in message
news:l2********************************@4ax.com.. . [...]
Properly authored www pages will allow you to have that final control.

Major parts of the following was once written by a highly regarded CSS
designer...

<http://www.css.nu/articles/font-analogy.html>

...it still illustrates most of today's www situation.


[...]
If I create a painting & you don't like where I've placed some
brushstrokes or the colors I've used or the size of it, should
you be allowed to rearrange it to your liking?
No, of course not; the thought of that would not even cross my mind.

OTOH, would you like to "control" my viewing angle when I look at your
artwork? What if I'm very short or very tall? or if my eyes are skewed
so I need to stand at one or the other side to get _my_ best view.

It seems to me that you are comparing apples to oranges here.

The original idea, that later lead to the invention of the www, was to
find a method that would allow "global" access to information that was
available on basically incompatible systems.

Your painting canvas and my browsers view port are pretty good examples
of initially "incompatible" systems, but there is nothing in the
technology of the www that prohibits you from making your painting
available to me for viewing in my browsers view port.

The 'IMG' and 'OBJECT' elements stands at your service for that part,
still it shall be up to me to adjust my view port such as it gives me my
best possible view of your painting, right?

The basic "mistake" of so many www "designers" is to think of other
peoples browser view ports as "the designers own canvas" that can be
used at will to present some pixel perfect presentation of e.g. the
Waffle House food menu, or any other thought out design "dream".

But that is not the base of this media, the WWW is supposed to be a
"World Wide" accessible database that contains the, at any time, best
collection of acquired human knowledge, all relevantly linked together
with those hyperlinks that constitutes the threads in the "Web".

Just about anything can be housed inside such a concept, but it has to
be "housed" in a way that makes it widely accessible.

Feel free to present a painting or two to me over the www, but please
don't do it in a way that makes it obscure to me to get my best viewing
experience from it.
What if the canvas was stretched on a cheap, prefab from the five & dime
store. I didn't build it myself with high quality materials & excellent
workmanship. Still, the painting is spectacular. Imagine if it would not be
allowed in a juried show or to be viewed/sold in a gallery because of the
shoddy underside.
As I have tried to describe, the www is your free place to present
anything you want as you see fit.

But, the size of your possible target area will vary, all depending on
how clever you are to make your material accessible on a wide scale.

[...]
Re font size & how it's displayed, I haven't seen great variation.
And the Dollar Store sells reading glasses for $5.00.


Won't help me much some 20 years from now maybe. I have repeated cases
of glaucoma running in the family line and may have to look forward to
total blindness in the future (I'm 56 today).

Your lesson during that time period will be to figure out what
ALT-ernative www content you should give to any one of your paintings so
that they will still be accessible to me as a sound or tactile www
experience :-)

There is at least initial provisions for that too, already built into
current www technology.

--
Rex
Jul 24 '05 #158
kchayka wrote:
Because I prefer it that way, and it is my browser. And don't you
always say leave my browser preferences alone? Or does that only
include the preferences you think are important (say pop-ups or your
scroll bar)? Hmmm... You want a full-size browser window, but for some reason you
don't want to use all of the available space to show web pages? If
that's what you really want to do, fine, but it seems silly to me.


Doesn't seem silly to me. It is easier for me to read, and it lets
virtually all fixed width sites (the norm on the web right now) to fit
in my browser window with no changing. You on the other hand are
continually changing the size of your window to accommodate the vast
majority of the web (the fixed width sites you hate so much) So who is
silly?
I, as an author, would do my part to prevent excessively long lines of
text by setting a max-width on paragraphs (~40em), but if your browser
doesn't support that property, you're just out of luck. I am adamently
opposed to fixing the width just because some people use a deficient
browser. Sorry.
I use FF. (Full screen so I can easily accommodate everyone).
I also think it's unreasonable to expect a web author to fix the layout
width to accomodate a few people who do silly things with their browser.


I don't expect anyone to do anything. I am a realist. Right or wrong,
fixed width is the norm right now. My full screen browser assures that I
am not going to constantly be changing the size of my browser window
with every site I go to. So I may have a little empty space on the
right side, but I am never taking the time to resize my window. (Except
when I get to one of the very few flexible sites out there)

--
-=tn=-
Jul 24 '05 #159
kchayka wrote:
I don't. I like full screen, and your content is hard to read that way. And I don't like fixed designs. I find them hard to read, mostly because
of too-short lines and broken layouts at my larger-than-average text size.


See the joys of personal preference.
With a flexible layout, I have a very good chance of making the page
comfortably readable, even if I have to adjust my browser window size a
bit to do it. With a fixed layout, I have very little chance of getting
a good result.


I always get a good result with full screen. And you know what, I can
only read one webpage at a time so I am not losing anything by not
having room on my screen for another window. And best of all, I never
have to change my window size unless I run into one of the few flexible
width sites. So, I guess, because of the current state of the web, I
feel I win in the long run.
--
-=tn=-
Jul 24 '05 #160
Travis Newbury wrote:
I have several threads on the ADL website dedicated to the use of Flash
as the connection medium between the content and a LMS/LCMS that can
eliminate some of the requirements of IE. Flash is a perfect medium or
learning content.


I guess I'll have to back off on "not a single reason" as I have seen a
demo of a flash learning tool. It is a cutaway of the mouth, throat,
and tongue showing the movements during sounds of speech. The demo I
saw was geared for a linguistics class. Very cool.

--
Stan McCann "Uncle Pirate" http://stanmccann.us/pirate.html
Webmaster/Computer Center Manager, NMSU at Alamogordo
Coordinator, Tularosa Basin Chapter, ABATE of NM; AMA#758681; COBB
'94 1500 Vulcan (now wrecked) :( http://motorcyclefun.org/Dcp_2068c.jpg
A zest for living must include a willingness to die. - R.A. Heinlein
Jul 24 '05 #161
c.thornquist wrote:
HTML is our paintbrush, our clay, our musical instrument. What you see in
your browser is our creation. Maybe that's why some of us take issue with an
organization impeding the creative process.

Maybe that's why so many who are aware of validation & the efforts of the
w3c, don't comply fully. What do you think?


I agree with much of what Travis has been saying. It's possible to
create some wonderful artistic sites using CSS, but most of us that use
it are techies rather than artists. You've mentioned that you are an
artist, create a masterpiece! The trick is having both sets of skills.
You've said you have the one. Here and ciwas is where you'll learn
the other. Ya gotta get a thicker skin though, some of us techies can
be kinda harsh sometimes.

--
Stan McCann "Uncle Pirate" http://stanmccann.us/pirate.html
Webmaster/Computer Center Manager, NMSU at Alamogordo
Coordinator, Tularosa Basin Chapter, ABATE of NM; AMA#758681; COBB
'94 1500 Vulcan (now wrecked) :( http://motorcyclefun.org/Dcp_2068c.jpg
A zest for living must include a willingness to die. - R.A. Heinlein
Jul 24 '05 #162
Jan Roland Eriksson wrote:
On the www the HTTP protocol defines an HTTP "Content-type" header that
is supposed to tell your browser what kind of content it is about to
receive.
As far as I know, the content type is only for the browser, being sent
by a server. The servers I manage process many things according to file
extension. It is configured so that an html or htm extension is sent
using http or https, anything in the cgi-bin disregards extension
processing anything there as a CGI program. Then, being a school and
teaching CGI, CGI is enabled for the users to run in their directories
if the file has a cgi extension. The server knows to parse for PHP if
the extension is php. And so on. Anything not defined is handled as
plain text.

So, in speaking about browsers only, no, the browser doesn't require
file extensions. The server does though, so it expects the browser to
ask for files by extension.

Given correct server config, the all too common .html (or even worse,
the .htm) extension is totally redundant.
If you are talking about configuring by directories. But then, how do
you handle other types of files? The server handles files the way it is
told so if you set a directory to handle all files as HTML, then all
graphics would have to be in a different directory configured to handle
things as graphics.

Even MSIE understands at least the basics of that part.

That's a browser, the server has to know how to handle the file and the
easiest way is to configure it to handle files based on extensions and
very little based upon locations.

--
Stan McCann "Uncle Pirate" http://stanmccann.us/pirate.html
Webmaster/Computer Center Manager, NMSU at Alamogordo
Coordinator, Tularosa Basin Chapter, ABATE of NM; AMA#758681; COBB
'94 1500 Vulcan (now wrecked) :( http://motorcyclefun.org/Dcp_2068c.jpg
A zest for living must include a willingness to die. - R.A. Heinlein
Jul 24 '05 #163
Travis Newbury wrote:
I already said, I prefer a full screen browser.


But you clearly don't prefer the results of using a full screen browser.

Perhaps a solution...
http://examples.tobyinkster.co.uk/fullscreen-with-tb

--
Toby A Inkster BSc (Hons) ARCS
Contact Me ~ http://tobyinkster.co.uk/contact

Jul 24 '05 #164
Peter1968 wrote:
Like I wrote in another post, Amaya 9.1 actually installed and opened
first go maximized. I think I just used the word "opened" myself, which
isn't quite the same thing.

But no, Amaya is by no means a "usual browser".


Linux version doesn't.

--
Toby A Inkster BSc (Hons) ARCS
Contact Me ~ http://tobyinkster.co.uk/contact

Jul 24 '05 #165
c.thornquist wrote:
If I create a painting & you don't like where I've placed some
brushstrokes or the colors I've used or the size of it, should you be
allowed to rearrange it to your liking?


Of course not, because if I rearrange your painting to my liking, then the
next person who comes along to it might not like it. There is only one
painting, so I shouldn't make any changes.

On the other hand, if I bought a postcard of your painting in the art
gallery's shop-come-cafe and took it home, I could happily draw little
moustaches and spectacles on the people if I thought it looked better that
way.

--
Toby A Inkster BSc (Hons) ARCS
Contact Me ~ http://tobyinkster.co.uk/contact

Jul 24 '05 #166
Uncle Pirate wrote:
As far as I know, the content type is only for the browser, being sent
by a server. The servers I manage process many things according to file
extension.


Some servers may behave in that manner, yes. Others may not.

A URL may not even exist as a file. For example:

http://tobyinkster.co.uk/home

There is no file called "home" or "home.html" or "home.htm" or whatever on
in the root directory, or any subdirectory for that domain name. (Nor
a file called "contact" -- see my sig.)

--
Toby A Inkster BSc (Hons) ARCS
Contact Me ~ http://tobyinkster.co.uk/contact

Jul 24 '05 #167
On Thu, 31 Mar 2005, Uncle Pirate wrote:
Jan Roland Eriksson wrote:
On the www the HTTP protocol defines an HTTP "Content-type" header that
is supposed to tell your browser what kind of content it is about to
receive.
As far as I know, the content type is only for the browser,


....and other HTTP clients...
being sent by a server.
The whole point was to define an interworking interface which
decoupled the interworking operation from details which were of only
local concern to the server, or to the client.
The servers I manage process many things according to file extension.
It's one commonly used mechanism, of course, but that doesn't change
the fact that, as far as the HTTP interworking interface is concerned,
there's no such thing as a "file extension" - there's only the token
known as a URL, whose syntax and semantics are specified in
interworking RFCs. It's really very simple, and you're only confusing
yourself (and potentially confusing others) by insisting on
dragging-in details which are of no concern to the HTTP protocol
exchange.
It is configured so that an html or htm extension is sent using http
or https, anything in the cgi-bin disregards extension processing
anything there as a CGI program. Then, being a school and teaching
CGI, CGI is enabled for the users to run in their directories if the
file has a cgi extension. The server knows to parse for PHP if the
extension is php. And so on. Anything not defined is handled as
plain text.
None of this is of any concern to the HTTP interworking interface;
once the server has decided, according to its own internal rules and
configuration, what's what, then it generates the authoritative
Content-type header - and that's the end of the matter.
So, in speaking about browsers only, no, the browser doesn't require
file extensions. The server does though, so it expects the browser
to ask for files by extension.


Non sequitur. Take a look at Apache MultiViews for just one
counter-example (out of many). HTTP servers expect clients to request
resources (which don't have to be files) by their URL. Nothing more.

You'd make things much simpler for yourself if you'd go along with the
well-thought-out plan of HTTP, instead of trying to over-complicate
the story with extraneous details.
Jul 24 '05 #168
me wrote:
"Richard Brooks" <ri***********@kdbanglia.com> wrote in message
[snip]

I think a lot of Web designs follows the HiFi system analogy. Okay, we
can put a 24-band graphic equaliser but do we really need it. We guys
use our ego's too much in most media. We could add Flash, Javascript,
ActiveX, XML, VML,VBScript and anything else on one page but are we
selling ourselves or the client's product.

In the UK we had a classic case of one TV advertising producer who got
so wild with showing his own talents (the last of the series of adverts
being a family car being driven through a post-apocalyptic world, you
know the sort of thing! Ball bearings being rolled over the road, a man
in a gimp mask with nails poked out of it, solarized colour with the
advert ending with a piano being thrown over a bridge) the customer
ended up not knowing what the name of the product being sold was.
Richard.

I agree and your points are valid. I would add that in my experience the
client (or employer) will only allow that which they find appropriate.
Signed,
me


I'd just remembered the old tag that I hadn't heard in years and
encapsulated the male standard of "F*ck you, I'll do it my way!" (and
I've seen a couple of planes crash at airshows because of that
attitude.) At least we're safer down here on the ground with broken code.

BTW, it's called "techno-wanking!" :-)

Richard.
Jul 24 '05 #169
me wrote:
"Richard Brooks" <ri***********@kdbanglia.com> wrote in message
[snip]

I think a lot of Web designs follows the HiFi system analogy. Okay, we
can put a 24-band graphic equaliser but do we really need it. We guys
use our ego's too much in most media. We could add Flash, Javascript,
ActiveX, XML, VML,VBScript and anything else on one page but are we
selling ourselves or the client's product.

In the UK we had a classic case of one TV advertising producer who got
so wild with showing his own talents (the last of the series of adverts
being a family car being driven through a post-apocalyptic world, you
know the sort of thing! Ball bearings being rolled over the road, a man
in a gimp mask with nails poked out of it, solarized colour with the
advert ending with a piano being thrown over a bridge) the customer
ended up not knowing what the name of the product being sold was.
Richard.

I agree and your points are valid. I would add that in my experience the
client (or employer) will only allow that which they find appropriate.
Signed,
me


That's if the customer is strong enough! Some years ago I was asked by
the young friend of a friend with great enthusiasm who had inserted some
Java routine that had the letters from their company flying around the
screen before settling in the centre. They asked me to sit down and
watch the pages events unfold. When some of the combination of finally
slowing letters read "poo" (for those outside the UK "poo" is a rather
cute name for shit) for a brief moment I mentioned it in passing and
things went downhill from there. It was funny though but did it help
their brand new partnership ?
Richard.
Jul 24 '05 #170
c.thornquist wrote:
"Eric Bohlman" <eb******@omsdev.com> wrote in message
news:Xn*******************************@130.133.1.4 ...
Stephen Poley <sb******************@xs4all.nl> wrote in
news:nn********************************@4ax.co m:

On Tue, 29 Mar 2005 08:06:21 -0600, "me" <anonymous@_.com> wrote:
<snip>
The idea that working according to standards impedes creativity has
been voiced before in these groups. It is utter myth. This is obvious
if you take a look at the telecommunications sector: this is far more
strongly governed by standards than the Web is, yet it has produced a
flood of new services and products.


A corrolary is that the greatest artists of all time have been those who
innovated *within* the limits of their media, whereas artists who have
tried to pretend that those limits didn't exist have been relegated to
the scrap-heap of pseudo-artists (those who regard Art as merely calling
attention to oneself).

What does that mean? Are you referring to painters & sculptors? Musicians?

Carla


Funny you should mention that! I was thinking of the western musical
scale when reading the previous post then I thought about the ties
between Bach and Avril Lavigne, expressing themselves differently but
from the same basic jumping board.

It goes the same for Web page design too.
Richard.
Jul 24 '05 #171
Nick Kew wrote:
You say "if you don't like it, then change the size of your browser."
You have that choice.
Fixed width says "If you don't like it, then change the size of

your browser."

You might have that choice. But it lacks the flexibility to adapt,
and deprives many users of that choice.


Both styles are inconvienent to someone. The only difference I see is
to who.

The web is not, and (in my life time) will never be, without argument
someone out there will always yell "I can't see that! Unfair!"

--
-=tn=-

Jul 24 '05 #172

"Uncle Pirate" <st**@SureCann.com> wrote in message
news:42********@nntp.zianet.com...
c.thornquist wrote:
HTML is our paintbrush, our clay, our musical instrument. What you see in
your browser is our creation. Maybe that's why some of us take issue with
an organization impeding the creative process.

Maybe that's why so many who are aware of validation & the efforts of the
w3c, don't comply fully. What do you think?


I agree with much of what Travis has been saying. It's possible to create
some wonderful artistic sites using CSS, but most of us that use it are
techies rather than artists. You've mentioned that you are an artist,
create a masterpiece! The trick is having both sets of skills. You've
said you have the one. Here and ciwas is where you'll learn the other.
Ya gotta get a thicker skin though, some of us techies can be kinda harsh
sometimes.


Not harsh, just dogmatic in your views re the w3c and CSS, at times:)

Carla
Jul 24 '05 #173

"Richard Brooks" <ri***********@kdbanglia.com> wrote in message
news:d2**********@news.wplus.net...
c.thornquist wrote:
<snip>
The idea that working according to standards impedes creativity has
been voiced before in these groups. It is utter myth. This is obvious
if you take a look at the telecommunications sector: this is far more
strongly governed by standards than the Web is, yet it has produced a
flood of new services and products.
There are standards re what's allowed on the public airwaves, but aren't the
standards re what will be viewable/audible very basic & have to do with
lines of resolution, definitions of primary colors & frequencies? With HTML,
we know what a file must contain in order to be viewable. In
telecommunications, there is no agency telling you how the content is to be
created. Just the requirements for display. As long as our HTML is
accessible and displays correctly across browsers, what's the beef?

We forget that computers do much more than a TV set, so the web surfer must
make some effort, if they want to experience the www as more than just a
device that spits out facts and figures. I think some of you have lost your
awe of computers. This weekend go to Gamespot.com and download one of the
newest demos (my kids keep me aware). You'll come back with a new respect
for computers.

BTW, I want to view HD TV, but I can't because I haven't purchased one yet.
At least the plugins to view javascript are free:)

A corrolary is that the greatest artists of all time have been those who
innovated *within* the limits of their media, whereas artists who have
tried to pretend that those limits didn't exist have been relegated to
the scrap-heap of pseudo-artists (those who regard Art as merely calling
attention to oneself).

What does that mean? Are you referring to painters & sculptors?
Musicians?

Carla


Funny you should mention that! I was thinking of the western musical
scale when reading the previous post then I thought about the ties between
Bach and Avril Lavigne, expressing themselves differently but from the
same basic jumping board.

It goes the same for Web page design too.
Richard.


HTML's "basic jumping board" is established, as well. HTML, head, & body
tags; plus you should close all tags. Just like television standards where x
number of lines are required & primary colors are defined.

BTW, are you familiar with non-western musical scales? There are other
musical scales used in creating equally beautiful and moving music.

Carla
Jul 24 '05 #174
Toby Inkster wrote:
Uncle Pirate wrote:

As far as I know, the content type is only for the browser, being sent
by a server. The servers I manage process many things according to file
extension.

Some servers may behave in that manner, yes. Others may not.


What others? How does it know what files to reference and how to
process them? Not trying to start an argument, just curious?

A URL may not even exist as a file. For example:

http://tobyinkster.co.uk/home

There is no file called "home" or "home.html" or "home.htm" or whatever on
in the root directory, or any subdirectory for that domain name. (Nor
a file called "contact" -- see my sig.)


I know that I can do that using an index.php and just use the
subdirectory in the URL, but the server (in my case) is still looking
for particular file names, index.html, index.htm, index.php or index.cgi
on most of the several servers I set up and manage.

--
Stan McCann "Uncle Pirate" http://stanmccann.us/pirate.html
Webmaster/Computer Center Manager, NMSU at Alamogordo
Coordinator, Tularosa Basin Chapter, ABATE of NM; AMA#758681; COBB
'94 1500 Vulcan (now wrecked) :( http://motorcyclefun.org/Dcp_2068c.jpg
A zest for living must include a willingness to die. - R.A. Heinlein
Jul 24 '05 #175
Uncle Pirate <st**@SureCann.com> writes:
Toby Inkster wrote:
Uncle Pirate wrote:
As far as I know, the content type is only for the browser, being
sent by a server. The servers I manage process many things
according to file extension.

Some servers may behave in that manner, yes. Others may not.


What others? How does it know what files to reference and how to
process them? Not trying to start an argument, just curious?


Look up mod_rewrite for Apache, and similar.

So the request for
http://www.example.com/news/articles/371
could be rewritten internally to
http://www.example.com/cgi-bin/artic...1&section=news

The user-agent never sees the second URL.

--
Chris
Jul 24 '05 #176
Alan J. Flavell wrote:
On Thu, 31 Mar 2005, Uncle Pirate wrote:

Jan Roland Eriksson wrote:
On the www the HTTP protocol defines an HTTP "Content-type" header that
is supposed to tell your browser what kind of content it is about to
receive.
As far as I know, the content type is only for the browser,

...and other HTTP clients...


Yep, wasn't thinking on a broad enough scale at the time.
It's one commonly used mechanism, of course, but that doesn't change
the fact that, as far as the HTTP interworking interface is concerned,
there's no such thing as a "file extension" - there's only the token
known as a URL, whose syntax and semantics are specified in
interworking RFCs. It's really very simple, and you're only confusing
yourself (and potentially confusing others) by insisting on
dragging-in details which are of no concern to the HTTP protocol
exchange.
Didn't mean to confuse anyone or start an argument. I guess I've got
some study to do.
It is configured so that an html or htm extension is sent using http
or https, anything in the cgi-bin disregards extension processing
anything there as a CGI program. Then, being a school and teaching
CGI, CGI is enabled for the users to run in their directories if the
file has a cgi extension. The server knows to parse for PHP if the
extension is php. And so on. Anything not defined is handled as
plain text.

None of this is of any concern to the HTTP interworking interface;
once the server has decided, according to its own internal rules and
configuration, what's what, then it generates the authoritative
Content-type header - and that's the end of the matter.


I was referring to before the server decides and what the server uses to
decide. Apples and Oranges, or I'm still confused.
So, in speaking about browsers only, no, the browser doesn't require
file extensions. The server does though, so it expects the browser
to ask for files by extension.

Non sequitur. Take a look at Apache MultiViews for just one
counter-example (out of many). HTTP servers expect clients to request
resources (which don't have to be files) by their URL. Nothing more.


I don't have time right now to really study it, I've never used or read
up on MultiViews. I will. I know the client requests a resource, just
IME, that resource, is a file of some sort, whether HTML, PHP, script or
compiled program...
You'd make things much simpler for yourself if you'd go along with the
well-thought-out plan of HTTP, instead of trying to over-complicate
the story with extraneous details.


Not trying to complicate things further, setting up/managing web servers
is complicated enough. I didn't think the hundreds (thousands?) of
files stored on and served by the servers was extraneous.

Although I've been at this for a number of years, I'm still learning (as
I think we all should be if we want to stay current). That's part of
why I frequent this, and other technical groups dealing with web
development and design, server management, and several programming
language groups.

I thought about it, maybe I should have wound up my initial response to
Jan with "Correct me if I'm wrong." Apparantly, I was wrong. Thanks
for correcting me.

--
Stan McCann "Uncle Pirate" http://stanmccann.us/pirate.html
Webmaster/Computer Center Manager, NMSU at Alamogordo
Coordinator, Tularosa Basin Chapter, ABATE of NM; AMA#758681; COBB
'94 1500 Vulcan (now wrecked) :( http://motorcyclefun.org/Dcp_2068c.jpg
A zest for living must include a willingness to die. - R.A. Heinlein
Jul 24 '05 #177
Travis Newbury wrote:
The web is not, and (in my life time) will never be, without argument
someone out there will always yell "I can't see that! Unfair!"


And that's why we can only do the best we can do for what we see as the
majority of our visitors. Decisions must be made as to the
maximum/minimum sizes we choose to support. Although I turn it off, I
think JavaScript is even appropriate to try to control that support as
well. If done properly, I may have a wider or narrower window than
supported and it may look terrible to me because of it. But that is my
choice; I deal with it.

I am such a well known stickler for no plugins, cookies, JavaScript and
such, that when talking to the CS program coordinator about my teaching
a Computer Literacy course next Fall, he was telling me about the
software used with the course and was worried that I wouldn't like it as
I have to use IE and ActiveX. No problem, I already keep a browser
configured for accessing my work site where I need cookies, JavaScript,
etc. enabled. He was kind of surprised as he thought he was going to
get an argument.

--
Stan McCann "Uncle Pirate" http://stanmccann.us/pirate.html
Webmaster/Computer Center Manager, NMSU at Alamogordo
Coordinator, Tularosa Basin Chapter, ABATE of NM; AMA#758681; COBB
'94 1500 Vulcan (now wrecked) :( http://motorcyclefun.org/Dcp_2068c.jpg
A zest for living must include a willingness to die. - R.A. Heinlein
Jul 24 '05 #178
c.thornquist wrote:
"Uncle Pirate" <st**@SureCann.com> wrote in message
news:42********@nntp.zianet.com...
I agree with much of what Travis has been saying. It's possible to create
some wonderful artistic sites using CSS, but most of us that use it are
techies rather than artists. You've mentioned that you are an artist,
create a masterpiece! The trick is having both sets of skills. You've
said you have the one. Here and ciwas is where you'll learn the other.
Ya gotta get a thicker skin though, some of us techies can be kinda harsh
sometimes.

Not harsh, just dogmatic in your views re the w3c and CSS, at times:)


That too. As you've been to some extent defending the table layout
method. From your posts though, I think you've got what it takes to
join us in some/most of those views. I don't think you've given CSS a
chance yet and if you truly have the artistic abilities, I'd sure like
to see you give it a chance and come up with some liquid creations.
It's a whole new type (ever changing) of canvas.

--
Stan McCann "Uncle Pirate" http://stanmccann.us/pirate.html
Webmaster/Computer Center Manager, NMSU at Alamogordo
Coordinator, Tularosa Basin Chapter, ABATE of NM; AMA#758681; COBB
'94 1500 Vulcan (now wrecked) :( http://motorcyclefun.org/Dcp_2068c.jpg
A zest for living must include a willingness to die. - R.A. Heinlein
Jul 24 '05 #179
On Thu, 31 Mar 2005 11:19:52 -0600, "me" <anonymous@_.com> wrote:

... you seem to delight
in trolling around after me commenting on just my posts. ;-)


A case of paranoia??

Geo

Jul 24 '05 #180
Uncle Pirate wrote:
What others? How does it know what files to reference and how to
process them? Not trying to start an argument, just curious?


Diverging into to seperate threads here:

1. Methods of determining content-type of some content.

Apache has several: "asis" files, using file "extensions", MIME Magic
<http://httpd.apache.org/docs/mod/mod_mime_magic.html>, hard-coding the
type for files into the server config files, etc

2. Methods of determining content itself.

mod_rewrite, CGI's PATH_INFO, custom Apache modules or ISAPI modules...
There is one site I maintain where *all* URLs are simply directed to one
particular CGI script that decides what to do with them.

--
Toby A Inkster BSc (Hons) ARCS
Contact Me ~ http://tobyinkster.co.uk/contact

Jul 24 '05 #181
Uncle Pirate wrote:
I am such a well known stickler for no plugins, cookies, JavaScript and
such, that when talking to the CS program coordinator about my teaching
a Computer Literacy course next Fall, he was telling me about the
software used with the course and was worried that I wouldn't like it as
I have to use IE and ActiveX. No problem, I already keep a browser
configured for accessing my work site where I need cookies, JavaScript,
etc. enabled. He was kind of surprised as he thought he was going to
get an argument.


I think the key to a good website is building one that works for the
people that are most likely to use it. Very few people in the corporate
world, sitting behind corporate firewalls limited by the companies
security policies are regular visitors to Barbie.dot com. They probably
would lose more business by creating a accessible CSS based site, than
they would gain. On the other hand, a site providing information about
accessibility should probably shy away from Flash.

Every site is different, and should be treated as such. If the visitor
is truly the most important part of the website, then research them, and
give them what they want.

--
-=tn=-
Jul 24 '05 #182

"Uncle Pirate" <st**@SureCann.com> wrote in message
news:42********@nntp.zianet.com...
c.thornquist wrote:
"Uncle Pirate" <st**@SureCann.com> wrote in message
news:42********@nntp.zianet.com...
Not harsh, just dogmatic in your views re the w3c and CSS, at times:)


That too. As you've been to some extent defending the table layout
method. From your posts though, I think you've got what it takes to join
us in some/most of those views. I don't think you've given CSS a chance
yet and if you truly have the artistic abilities, I'd sure like to see you
give it a chance and come up with some liquid creations. It's a whole new
type (ever changing) of canvas.


I may learn it someday. Is it much different from the embedded styles I'm
already using? Here's an example:

<style type="text/css">
<!--
body { font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12px;
font-style: normal; line-height: normal; font-weight: normal; font-variant:
normal; text-transform: none; color: #000000; text-decoration: none;
background-attachment: scroll; background-color: #FFFFFF}
p,blockquote,li,ol,ul,td { font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;
font-size: 12px; font-style: normal; line-height: normal; font-weight:
normal; font-variant: normal; text-transform: none; color: #000000;
text-decoration: none}
a { font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12px;
font-style: normal; line-height: normal; font-weight: normal; font-variant:
normal; text-transform: none; color: #3333CC; text-decoration: none}
a:visited {font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12px;
font-style: normal; line-height: normal; font-weight: normal; font-variant:
normal; text-transform: none; color: #CC3300; text-decoration: none}
a:hover { font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12px;
font-style: normal; line-height: normal; font-weight: normal; font-variant:
normal; text-transform: none; color: #8000FF; text-decoration: underline}
..rightborder {
border-right: 1px solid #CCCCCC;
}
..leftborder {
border-left: 1px solid #CCCCCC;
}
-->
</style>

After looking at Google's code today & setting my IE text size to large (it
worked!), I thought I should drop defined font size completely & use +1
and -1. For other sizes specify in the style.

Is that a start? :)

I ran a page through the validator today under many DOC TYPES. It went from
one error in transitional to 93 errors in 3.2 and 233 errors in 2.0 (hope I
remembered that right). Made me think it'll take quite a while to learn the
new rules.

Carla
Jul 24 '05 #183

"Jim Moe" <jm***************@sohnen-moe.com> wrote in message
news:1a********************@giganews.com...
c.thornquist wrote:

If I create a painting & you don't like where I've placed some
brushstrokes or the colors I've used or the size of it, should you be
allowed to rearrange it to your liking?
You miss the point. A painting is a fixed format; you are in complete
control of size, color, shape, texture, etc. WWW is highly variable; you
control the content, color (usually), and general layout; no control over
size or shape. You are comparing apples with cars and claiming they are
the same thing.


But isn't that what we are attempting to control by using fixed sizes?
developers will do the same for websites & site visitors, because it's to
their benefit financially.

You are just joshing us, of course. Remote controls for font size? LOL


Oh no, I'm serious. I'm not suggesting remote controls, just saying that
whoever designed & built them realized that people don't want to have to
make adjustments. People want to open their browser & go. Not having to
download plug-ins or be told that a site is "Best viewed at..." or having to
sit through a FLASH intro, etc. Creating a browser that requires the least
effort for the user & allows the widest range of content means more money.
Re the length of text on a screen. It's analogous to newspapers,
magazines or books using one huge page with no columns. Wouldn't that be
fun to read?

Now you are just being silly.


Why is that silly? Even on a 14" monitor that's a foot of text to read
across at a stretch.

Carla
Jul 24 '05 #184

"Steve Pugh" <st***@pugh.net> wrote in message
news:cb********************************@4ax.com...
"c.thornquist" <c.**********@insightbb.com> wrote:
Now I'm even more confused. I just changed the font sizes in IE on a site
I've maintained for 5 years & on pages with the original coding IE can
change the size & they look fine. But on the newer pages in which I used
style tags, IE can't do a thing re sizes.


I predict that you used px or pt for the font size in your CSS, am I
right? Despite the daily advice in these newsgroups not to do so.


Yep. I'm new here:)

<snip>
I checked a site last week in FF & some of the fonts changed size, while
others did not.


URL? FF will resize any font (allowing for the user's minimum font
size setting). Sure the others weren't images? ;-)


My FF is gone. Several days ago it started downloading to my hard drive
automatically. I thought it was strange, since it didn't say that it was an
update. It was downloading a complete & newer version. Anyway, I've been
downloading games for my kids & checked ADD/REMOVE programs & found two FF
programs. So I deleted the older version. Now I have none that'll work. I'll
grab it again, but each said about 14MB. What happened?
(I'll try to check that site in FF after I grab it again)

Carla
Jul 24 '05 #185
c.thornquist wrote:
My FF is gone. Several days ago it started downloading to my hard
drive automatically. I thought it was strange, since it didn't say
that it was an update. It was downloading a complete & newer
version. Anyway, I've been downloading games for my kids & checked
ADD/REMOVE programs & found two FF programs. So I deleted the older
version. Now I have none that'll work. I'll grab it again, but each
said about 14MB. What happened? (I'll try to check that site in FF
after I grab it again)


Firefox needs to be uninstalled via Add/Remove Programs before
installing a newer version. This necessity will be corrected in a
coming version, soon. Meantime, you should already have the latest
1.0.2 file you downloaded; where did you save it?

Just rerun it.

Oh, Firefox is less than 5MB.

--
-bts
-This space intentionally left blank.
Jul 24 '05 #186

"c.thornquist" <c.**********@insightbb.com> wrote in message
news:Dln3e.8209$Vx1.2157@attbi_s01...
<snip>
After looking at Google's code today & setting my IE text size to large
(it worked!), I thought I should drop defined font size completely & use
+1 and -1. For other sizes specify in the style.

<snip>

I meant "fixed" not "defined" font size. Still learning to communicate:(

Carla
Jul 24 '05 #187
Travis Newbury wrote:
Every site is different, and should be treated as such. If the visitor
is truly the most important part of the website, then research them, and
give them what they want.


Bingo! And realize that there may be several audiences and ease of use
needs to be factored in for each audience. I'm talking about content
now; making it easy for a user to find what they are looking for.

--
Stan McCann "Uncle Pirate" http://stanmccann.us/pirate.html
Webmaster/Computer Center Manager, NMSU at Alamogordo
Coordinator, Tularosa Basin Chapter, ABATE of NM; AMA#758681; COBB
'94 1500 Vulcan (now wrecked) :( http://motorcyclefun.org/Dcp_2068c.jpg
A zest for living must include a willingness to die. - R.A. Heinlein
Jul 24 '05 #188
c.thornquist wrote:
Is that a start? :)
Sure, that's a start. There's three ways (maybe more?) to do CSS. 1)
Inline as a style attribute: <p style="font-size:large"> 2) As the
content of a style element as you showed. 3) In a seperate file
referenced from any page that needs that style (great for sites; if the
HTML is done well, change one file to change the site).

I ran a page through the validator today under many DOC TYPES. It went from
one error in transitional to 93 errors in 3.2 and 233 errors in 2.0 (hope I
remembered that right). Made me think it'll take quite a while to learn the
new rules.


Try HTML 4.01 strict. It really enforces separation of content and
layout by not allowing (counts as error) the deprecated layout type
elements such as <center>.

--
Stan McCann "Uncle Pirate" http://stanmccann.us/pirate.html
Webmaster/Computer Center Manager, NMSU at Alamogordo
Coordinator, Tularosa Basin Chapter, ABATE of NM; AMA#758681; COBB
'94 1500 Vulcan (now wrecked) :( http://motorcyclefun.org/Dcp_2068c.jpg
A zest for living must include a willingness to die. - R.A. Heinlein
Jul 24 '05 #189
c.thornquist wrote:
Why is that silly? Even on a 14" monitor that's a foot of text to read
across at a stretch.


A typical 14" (diagonal) monitor is 10.5" wide. Taking account of a scroll
bar and a little margin around the edge of the page, it's probably
slightly under 10", but let's call it ten as it's an easier calculation.

Assume some naviagation with a width of about 28% of the page and a 2%
gutter and you have left a 7" column of text to read, which is narrower
than a typical A4 sheet of paper. Few people have problems reading
letters printed on A4.

Besides which, it is not really the physical size of the text area that is
important. (Do you find giant 30 foot advertisement posters hard to read?)

It is the number of words per line that effects readability. That is
controlled a combination of font size and text area -- so a user can
increase/decrease the number of words per line by changing font size, or
by changing browser width.

By explicitly setting a font size and page width, you do not allow the
visitor to adjust the number of words per line, so decrease the
readability of your pages.

--
Toby A Inkster BSc (Hons) ARCS
Contact Me ~ http://tobyinkster.co.uk/contact

Jul 24 '05 #190
On Fri, 1 Apr 2005, Uncle Pirate wrote:
None of this is of any concern to the HTTP interworking interface;
once the server has decided, according to its own internal rules
and configuration, what's what, then it generates the
authoritative Content-type header - and that's the end of the
matter.


I was referring to before the server decides and what the server
uses to decide.


That's OK as long as -you- know what you're talking about. But as I
say, these server-internal details are of no concern to the HTTP
interworking interface, and other folks who are reading your stuff
may heed help to put such extraneous detail out of their minds when
they're looking at the HTTP protocol transaction itself.

I mean, consider (to take just a very simple example), a server on
which .rpm is used to name RedHat packages, as against a client which
uses .rpm to name realplayer media files. Normal retrieval stands or
falls by whether the server describes them correctly in its HTTP
Content-type: header. The filename extension is not helpful in any
way, as far as /this/ part of the machinery is concerned.

Or to put it more generally: the way to solve complex problems is to
package them into neat portions, with well-defined interfaces between
them, and to avoid unnecessary leakage of the internal details across
the interworking interfaces. Object Oriented programming is another
area which tries to capitalise on this valuable principle.

have fun
Jul 24 '05 #191
In alt.html Uncle Pirate <st**@surecann.com> wrote:

That's it, I beleive. I know that I am no designer. So, in the
upcoming redesign of the large website I manage (http://alamo.nmsu.edu),
the design will be created by a committee consisting of people from our


Please do not allow the person who had the idea of adding the animated
gif behind the address to join in to the committee :-)
Jul 24 '05 #192
Uncle Pirate wrote:
Every site is different, and should be treated as such. If the
visitor is truly the most important part of the website, then research
them, and give them what they want.

Bingo! And realize that there may be several audiences and ease of use
needs to be factored in for each audience. I'm talking about content
now; making it easy for a user to find what they are looking for.


I agree, but will word it differently. You can only have one audience.
But, the key is to understand that, that audience may have a wide
variety of needs. These needs fall into two categories. Content needs,
and accessibility needs. The smart web designer takes both into
consideration when designing a web site. (Not putting words in your
mouth, I believe that is the exact same thing you said worded a little
differently.)
--
-=tn=-
Jul 24 '05 #193
Toby Inkster wrote:
By explicitly setting a font size and page width, you do not allow the
visitor to adjust the number of words per line, so decrease the
readability of your pages.


I think the main reason a lot of people have fixed width (and good or
bad, this is the exact reason we do) is the logo and page header image.
Rather than having the text continue past the logo/header, (which
many think looks bad esthetically) they fix the width.

--
-=tn=-
Jul 24 '05 #194
Toby Inkster wrote:
c.thornquist wrote:
Why is that silly? Even on a 14" monitor that's a foot of text to read
across at a stretch.

A typical 14" (diagonal) monitor is 10.5" wide...


I don't know about anyone else, but this has to be about the best thread
on this issue I have read. There has been no flaming, no name calling,
everyone is just stating their case.

What have we become!

--
-=tn=-
Jul 24 '05 #195
Ángel wrote:
That's it, I beleive. I know that I am no designer. So, in the
upcoming redesign of the large website I manage (http://alamo.nmsu.edu),
the design will be created by a committee consisting of people from our

Please do not allow the person who had the idea of adding the animated
gif behind the address to join in to the committee :-)


Yea, everyone knows they could do it much better with Flash.... (0_o)

--
-=tn=-
Jul 24 '05 #196
Travis Newbury wrote:
I think the main reason a lot of people have fixed width (and good or
bad, this is the exact reason we do) is the logo and page header image.
Rather than having the text continue past the logo/header, (which
many think looks bad esthetically) they fix the width.


I can certainly see the need for a max-width and a min-width. A mimimum
width is needed if you're using multi-columns of any reasonably large
images. A maximum width may be a good idea for reasons of readability.

However, a fixed width design equates the min-width and the max-width,
usually for no good reason.

Even graphically-rich header areas are not always an excuse. The header
can be designed in such a way that it will scale to the visitor's browser
size. Here is such an example[1]:

http://examples.tobyinkster.co.uk/sl...banner/example

It scale quite nicely from just under 800px width to about 1400px width,
after which it starts to look a little strained.

The classics have never been so colourful. ;-)

____
1. Credits:
Images stolen from http://www.jimpoz.com/quotes/speaker.php?speakerid=314
Text from Cicero and H Rackham, via http://www.lipsum.com/
Design by Toby Inkster with some modifications by (I think) Dylan Parry

--
Toby A Inkster BSc (Hons) ARCS
Contact Me ~ http://tobyinkster.co.uk/contact
Now Playing ~ ./kula_shaker/govinda.ogg

Jul 24 '05 #197
On Sat, 2 Apr 2005, Toby Inkster wrote:
I can certainly see the need for a max-width and a min-width.
max-width, yes. min-width, possibly.
A mimimum width is needed if you're using multi-columns of any
reasonably large images.
So try another way. If you have "reasonably large" images, they
themselves will impose some minimum width, without the author going
and over-specifying something additionally. And if the images can be
laid out flexibly, without a pre-determined number of columns, they'll
be more readily accessible on display areas of limited size - or by
sight-impaired users who have to magnify everything onto their
normal-sized display. And so on.
A maximum width may be a good idea for reasons of readability.
Indeed. What a pity that the widely-used operating systems component
that imagines itself to be a web browser, disdains to support such a
useful feature of CSS.
However, a fixed width design equates the min-width and the
max-width, usually for no good reason.


amen to that
Jul 24 '05 #198
Toby Inkster wrote:
Travis Newbury wrote:
Rather than having the text continue past the logo/header, (which
many think looks bad esthetically) they fix the width. I can certainly see the need for a max-width and a min-width. A mimimum
width is needed if you're using multi-columns of any reasonably large
images. A maximum width may be a good idea for reasons of readability.


And if only IE had thought about this... Maybe with the next version...
Na, never happen...
However, a fixed width design equates the min-width and the max-width,
usually for no good reason.
Even graphically-rich header areas are not always an excuse. The header
can be designed in such a way that it will scale to the visitor's browser
size. Here is such an example[1]:
http://examples.tobyinkster.co.uk/sl...banner/example
It scale quite nicely from just under 800px width to about 1400px width,
after which it starts to look a little strained.


Very nice example. Now if we could just get the graphics people to
listen. And I completely agree that adherence to the min and max width
would solve a very good portion of the issues discussed in this thread.

ps, I will eventually find the cat.

--
-=tn=-
Jul 24 '05 #199

"Beauregard T. Shagnasty" <a.*********@example.invalid> wrote in message
news:e3***************@twister.nyroc.rr.com...
c.thornquist wrote:
<snip>
Oh, Firefox is less than 5MB.

My Add/Remove programs says Mozilla Firefox 1.0.2 is 15.80MB. Can't
remember where FF was saving to, but I'll find it.

Thanks.

Carla
Jul 24 '05 #200

This discussion thread is closed

Replies have been disabled for this discussion.

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.