God I miss tables-help needed!

[Paul Watt]

Hi again,
Ok so I've got two new problems with this layout
http://www.paulwatt.info/test/turn/

1) When I increase the width of the Maincontent Div from 73% to 74% to line
it up with the right hand side of the page, the whole div drops to below the
level of the leftcell div. put it back to 73% and it goes back to its
correct posistion.

2) It looks fine in IE but a absolute dogs dinner in FF. whys this?

Thanks once again for all your help! This would be soooooo easy to do with
the good old <table> tag!

Paul

http://www.paulwatt.info

[GreyWyvern]

And lo, Paul Watt didst speak in
alt.html,alt.http://www.webmaster,comp.infosystem...g.stylesheets:

Hi again,
Ok so I've got two new problems with this layout
http://www.paulwatt.info/test/turn/

1) When I increase the width of the Maincontent Div from 73% to 74% to
line
it up with the right hand side of the page, the whole div drops to below
the
level of the leftcell div. put it back to 73% and it goes back to its
correct posistion.

2) It looks fine in IE but a absolute dogs dinner in FF. whys this?

Thanks once again for all your help! This would be soooooo easy to do
with the good old <table> tag!

Paul, you are taking the table-layout mode of thought and trying to force
it upon CSS and expecting it to comply. These blocks are still "cells" to
you, which is likely why you feel the need to over-specify properties on
them. Relax, and remember that the more CSS you have, the harder it is to
debug. Keep things simple, the default styles on the block elements you
are using already provide for most of what you are trying to do.

First, remove the width property from the .maincontent rule entirely.
<div>'s expand to fit all available horizontal space by default, so the
margin-left property is the only width-limiting style you require here.

To change how far the .maincontent div sits apart from the menu, just
change the value of the margin-left property. That's it.

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

[Richard]

Grey,

Am I correct in inferring from this thread that tables are being
superceded by divs for layout. Could you point me to some website(s)
that discuss this evolution?

Many thanks,
Richard

[Karl Groves]

"Richard" <Ri**********************@USComputerGurus.com> wrote in
news:11**********************@e56g2000cwe.googlegr oups.com:

Grey,

Am I correct in inferring from this thread that tables are being
superceded by divs for layout. Could you point me to some website(s)
that discuss this evolution?

http://w3.org

--
Karl Groves
http://karlcore.com
http://chevelle.karlcore.com

Accessibility Discussion List: http://smallerurl.com/?id=6p764du

[kchayka]

Paul Watt wrote:

Hi again,
Ok so I've got two new problems with this layout

Why don't you go find yourself a nice CSS book? Need I mention that you
should read it, too? ;)

While you're at it, get a few well-tested, ready-made templates to
study, and learn from them. You can start here:
<URL:http://css-discuss.incutio.com/>

And make use of google groups for the 1 thing it is good at: a
searchable archive of usenet posts. You aren't doing anything that
hasn't been done countless times before, you know.

Learn to help yourself first. Come here when you get stuck, but don't
come here first, eh? This isn't a help desk, you know.

--
Reply email address is a bottomless spam bucket.
Please reply to the group so everyone can share.

[Nik Coughlin]

Richard wrote:

Grey,

Am I correct in inferring from this thread that tables are being
superceded by divs for layout. Could you point me to some website(s)
that discuss this evolution?

Many thanks,
Richard

Not so much replaced as divs as replaced by semantic markup with
presentation controlled with CSS.

A good place to start:
http://www.hotdesign.com/seybold/

Others:
http://alistapart.com/
http://benmeadowcroft.com/webdev/
http://csszengarden.com/
http://glish.com/css/
http://internalysis.com/css.html
http://mezzoblue.com/archives/css/
http://porjes.com/example_css.html
http://positioniseverything.net/
http://thenoodleincident.com/tutorials/css/index.html
http://tjkdesign.com/articles/
http://tobyinkster.co.uk/web
http://www.fu2k.org/alex/css/
http://www.spartanicus.utvinternet.ie/index.htm

[Tony]

Richard wrote:

Grey,

Am I correct in inferring from this thread that tables are being
superceded by divs for layout. Could you point me to some website(s)
that discuss this evolution?

I don't mean to sound rude, but you are WAY behind the times on this.

Study up on CSS - that will give you at least a basis to start from. The
tutorial at w3schools is a decent start.

[Richard]

Hi Karl,

http://w3.org

Good point. I found a good "con" article there. I'll look at the site
further.

Thanks for you guidance. I guess I could have thought of that myself,
but I wanted to see the best places to look.

Regards,
Richard

[Richard]

Hi Nik,

Not so much replaced as divs as replaced by semantic markup with presentation controlled with CSS.

At first glance, it sounds like a good idea.
A good place to start: http://www.hotdesign.com/seybold/

That was a good place to start! I get the idea now and follow their
guidelines to see how it turns out on stuff I'm working on now.
Others:

Thanks for the list. I'll take a look at them from time to time.

Regards,
Richard

[Schraalhans Keukenmeester]

Tony wrote:

Richard wrote:

Grey,

Am I correct in inferring from this thread that tables are being
superceded by divs for layout. Could you point me to some website(s)
that discuss this evolution?

I don't mean to sound rude, but you are WAY behind the times on this.

Study up on CSS - that will give you at least a basis to start from. The
tutorial at w3schools is a decent start.

I think you and many others are confusing content and markup.
If the data to be displayed is tabular, I'd choose tables over div,
simply coz' I want the page to be legible unstyled as well.
I never read the table tag is being deprecated or obsolete. But then
again, there's so many things I haven't read yet.

I'd advise to start a page design by properly choosing the right html
tags for the page elements. Then use CSS to make a nice(r) layout.
Add divs where needed, but at all cost avoid the omnipresent div soup.
Some folks just replaced all their former tag soup for a different soup
flavour.

If your page looks like faeces when viewed unstyled, there's a good
chance you have started the wrong way. And I am willing to admit I
created enough examples of 'the wrong way' myself.

Did I grasp correctly this is the point Richard was trying to make?

Sh.

[Richard]

Hi Tony,

I don't mean to sound rude, but you are WAY behind the times on this.

You got that right! :-) I'm just starting to put up a technical
presentation on a web server, so I'm interested in applying the best
techniques while ensuring I get the job done in a timely fashion. So
I've employed some CSS stuff, some Table stuff, some site navigation.
And I've trolled Google Groups once in while to get current ideas about
this stuff. The idea in this thread, crudely stated, seemed to be
Tables:bad, CSS:good. I wanted to get some sense of this now, long
before I become a CSS guru. Hence my question, which elicited some
good ideas that I'll start applying pronto.

So, no offense taken ... because I surely am "WAY behind the times on
this".

Regards,
Richard

[Ed Jay]

Richard scribed:

Hi Tony,

I don't mean to sound rude, but you are WAY behind the times on this.
You got that right! :-) I'm just starting to put up a technical
presentation on a web server, so I'm interested in applying the best
techniques while ensuring I get the job done in a timely fashion. So
I've employed some CSS stuff, some Table stuff, some site navigation.
And I've trolled Google Groups once in while to get current ideas about
this stuff. The idea in this thread, crudely stated, seemed to be
Tables:bad, CSS:good.

No. Tables have their proper place...presenting tabular data.
I wanted to get some sense of this now, long
before I become a CSS guru. Hence my question, which elicited some
good ideas that I'll start applying pronto.

So, no offense taken ... because I surely am "WAY behind the times on
this".

Regards,
Richard

--
Ed Jay (remove 'M' to respond by email)

[Richard]

Hi Schraalhans,

Did I grasp correctly this is the point Richard was trying to make?

You certainly did. Of all the responses I've gotten, Tony has been
closest to providing suggestions about sites relevant to my question,
which I'll be referencing from time to time to improve my practices.

I agree with your assessment that manure, no matter how decoratively
presented, still reeks. And with thoughless tagging leads to an
unmanageble mess.

Regards,
Richard

[Richard]

Hi Ed,

No. Tables have their proper place...presenting tabular data.

Right. I got this clearly spelled out in the first reference Tony
pointed me to.

Thanks,
Richard

[Nik Coughlin]

Richard wrote:

Hi Ed,

No. Tables have their proper place...presenting tabular data.

Right. I got this clearly spelled out in the first reference Tony
pointed me to.

Thanks,
Richard

Nik, Tony, it's all the same :)

[JDS]

On Tue, 04 Apr 2006 15:49:12 +0100, Paul Watt wrote:

2) It looks fine in IE but a absolute dogs dinner in FF. whys this?

I haven't looked yet. Here is a suggestion anyways, based on the fact
that in actuality, FF (and Opera, and, to some extent, Safari/Konqueror)
renders CSS much more "correctly" than MSIE.

When trying to develop a CSS layout, make it work in FF or other "good"
CSS browser FIRST. *Then* tweak it to make it look right in MSIE. This
will save you time and headaches, IMO. It is much easier to develop a CSS
layout when the CSS works in the browser as expected, and without CSS bugs
or unsupported CSS features.

--
JDS | je*****@example.invalid
| http://www.newtnotes.com
DJMBS | http://newtnotes.com/doctor-jeff-master-brainsurgeon/

[JDS]

On Tue, 04 Apr 2006 18:04:09 -0700, Richard wrote:

You got that right! :-) I'm just starting to put up a technical
presentation on a web server, so I'm interested in applying the best
techniques while ensuring I get the job done in a timely fashion. So
I've employed some CSS stuff, some Table stuff, some site navigation.

For layouts, use *either* CSS *OR* tables[1], but please not both. Unless
a table is being used as intended: for tabular data (and a lot of things
fall into that category).

In general, for a CSS layout, my "best practices" are as follows:

1) Start with a plain vanilla HTML 4.01 strict page which has absolutely
zero author-imposed layou or design characteristics. USE SEMANTICALLY
CORRECT HTML!! That is to say, a pargraph uses a <P> tag and a list of
items uses <UL> or <OL> and <LI> tags, etc. DO NOT USE <DIV>s FOR
EVERYTHIGN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

2) Give classes and/or Id's to every element. Remeber, an element can
have more than one class. Also, each ID must be unique!

3) Take an image of what you want the layout to look like and start
applying CSS layout rules. This last bit is the tricky part, of course.
Also, you can start to add a smattering of <DIV>s here and there to force
the layout how you want it. But use pure <DIV>s sparingly!!

Why the warnings against DIVs? A <DIV> has no real semantic meaning and
using only <DIV>s will create a (valid, yes) HTML page that is not search
optimizable, not "508" accessible, and ultimately not as flexible as one
that uses "proper" HTML markup as HTML was intended to be used.

later...


[1] Some will say "never use tables anymore for layout" but I don't
completely agree, for a few reasons. For myself, though, I have stopped
using tables for layout.

--
JDS | je*****@example.invalid
| http://www.newtnotes.com
DJMBS | http://newtnotes.com/doctor-jeff-master-brainsurgeon/

[axlq]

In article <44******@clear.net.nz>, Nik Coughlin <nr******@gmail.com> wrote:

Richard wrote:
A good place to start:
http://www.hotdesign.com/seybold/

You're right, that's nice. They don't take the hard-line religious
viewpoint that all layout MUST be done in CSS. They do agree that
tables have uses in layout.

I do disagree with their recommendation to eliminate <b> and replace
it with <strong> -- why waste the extra bytes?

One thing I've discovered that forces me into a table layout is
the fact that I have tabular data to display within the layout. I
learned that if I use CSS layout and then try to display a table,
the CSS box boundaries don't necessarily follow or contain the
table boundaries -- especially if the table uses % widths. Or I
get nonsensical repositioning of my CSS elements that contain the
table. And the behavior isn't consistent across browsers. This
is unacceptable. Using a simple 2-column table for layout allows
me to display actual tabular data in each column without blowing
the box boundaries, and I use CSS for controlling the appearance of
everything else.

-A

[Tony]

Richard wrote:

Hi Tony,

I don't mean to sound rude, but you are WAY behind the times on this.

You got that right! :-) I'm just starting to put up a technical
presentation on a web server, so I'm interested in applying the best
techniques while ensuring I get the job done in a timely fashion. So
I've employed some CSS stuff, some Table stuff, some site navigation.
And I've trolled Google Groups once in while to get current ideas about
this stuff. The idea in this thread, crudely stated, seemed to be
Tables:bad, CSS:good. I wanted to get some sense of this now, long
before I become a CSS guru. Hence my question, which elicited some
good ideas that I'll start applying pronto.

Good way to approach it.

I think that, as you apply more CSS and move away from tables, you will
find that CSS provides greater flexibility in many ways, and is actually
far more powerful for rendering a solidly designed site - once you know
your way around it.

And I'll freely admit that there are still times that I find a simple
table works better to accomplish my design goals. I do try to stay away
from that, but you work with what you're given :)

So, no offense taken ... because I surely am "WAY behind the times on
this".

I appreciate that you took my comment as intended. Good luck with your
learning!

[Tony]

Nik Coughlin wrote:

Richard wrote:

Hi Ed,

No. Tables have their proper place...presenting tabular data.

Right. I got this clearly spelled out in the first reference Tony
pointed me to.

Thanks,
Richard

Nik, Tony, it's all the same :)

I should probably stop talking to myself, then

[William Tasso]

Fleeing from the madness of the "a2i network" jungle
axlq <ax**@spamcop.net> stumbled into
news:alt.html,alt.http://www.webmaster,comp.infosystem...ng.stylesheets
and said:

[greetings from AWW - please feel free to suggest f/ups]

In article <44******@clear.net.nz>, Nik Coughlin <nr******@gmail.com>
wrote:

Richard wrote:
A good place to start:
http://www.hotdesign.com/seybold/
You're right, that's nice. They don't take the hard-line religious
viewpoint that all layout MUST be done in CSS. They do agree that
tables have uses in layout.

each to their own.
I do disagree with their recommendation to eliminate <b> and replace
it with <strong> -- why waste the extra bytes?

hrmm - <strong> is not a replacement for <b>

<b> has no place in the modern web, it is purely a styling detail and as
such deserves to be discarded in favour of a CSS suggestion.

<strong> has an altogether different significance - which may (or may not)
include presenting text in a bold style.

--
William Tasso

http://williamtasso.com/words/what-is-usenet.asp

[Alan J. Flavell]

On Wed, 5 Apr 2006, William Tasso wrote - seen in alt.html (f'ups
suggested):

<ax**@spamcop.net> stumbled into
news:alt.html,alt.http://www.webmaster,comp.infosystem...ng.stylesheets
and said:

I do disagree with their recommendation to eliminate <b> and
replace it with <strong> -- why waste the extra bytes?
hrmm - <strong> is not a replacement for <b>

<strong>Agreed</>. If <b> is correctly used, it *cannot* mean
<strong>; in fact it can mean many different things for which bold
font is conventionally used, *excepting* those for which HTML provides
a purpose-designed markup. Similarly for <i>
<b> has no place in the modern web, it is purely a styling detail
Well, I think that's arguable.

Some usages of bold are firmly entrenched in typography (for example,
the volume number in a journal citation), and I see no real harm (so
long as HTML has no other markup for the purpose) in using <b> for
those uses.

Or rather, <b class="something">, where the class at least has some
human meaning, in the absence of any suitably-defined HTML markup.

Similarly for, say, the scientific name of a species, where an italic
font is a widespread convention, but, again, HTML has no <species>
markup, so we must do our best with what we have.
and as such deserves to be discarded in favour of a CSS suggestion.
By all means associate the markup (b.something, i.species etc) with
presentation proposals.

But I still think that markups like <b class="volume">,
<i class="species">, in situations where the typography is
sufficiently entrenched, have a slight edge over the unspecific
<span class="something"> markup that you're presumably implying here.
<strong> has an altogether different significance - which may (or
may not) include presenting text in a bold style.

Certainly agree with that.

best regards

[dorayme]

In article <pa****************************@example.invalid> ,
JDS <je*****@example.invalid> wrote:

In general, for a CSS layout, my "best practices" are as follows:

Your very own "best practice" eh? Now how is that for an
internalisation of a communal concept?

--
dorayme

[Richard]

Thanks, Jeff. I checked out you newtnotes. That's a nice idea. I
maintain a huge note directory, but I should organize as a web site.
Maybe sometime ...

Regards,
Richard

[Richard]

> I appreciate that you took my comment as intended. Good luck with your
learning!

Thanks, Tony.

I amazed at how much conversation my humble question precipitated.
Long live the Web!

Regards,
Richard

[Ed Jay]

Richard scribed:

I appreciate that you took my comment as intended. Good luck with your

learning!

Thanks, Tony.

I amazed at how much conversation my humble question precipitated.
Long live the Web!

By way of clarification only, this isn't the "Web." This is "Usenet."
--
Ed Jay (remove 'M' to respond by email)

[Nik Coughlin]

Tony wrote:

Nik Coughlin wrote:

Richard wrote:

Hi Ed,
No. Tables have their proper place...presenting tabular data.

Right. I got this clearly spelled out in the first reference Tony
pointed me to.

Thanks,
Richard

Nik, Tony, it's all the same :)

I should probably stop talking to myself, then

Oh man, please make the little voices stop

[JDS]

On Thu, 06 Apr 2006 07:33:09 +1000, dorayme wrote:

Your very own "best practice" eh? Now how is that for an
internalisation of a communal concept?

wha?

--
JDS | je*****@go.away.com
| http://www.newtnotes.com
DJMBS | http://newtnotes.com/doctor-jeff-master-brainsurgeon/

[JDS]

On Thu, 06 Apr 2006 07:33:09 +1000, dorayme wrote:

Your very own "best practice" eh?

Maybe I should've said "my 'suggested method'"

--
JDS | je*****@go.away.com
| http://www.newtnotes.com
DJMBS | http://newtnotes.com/doctor-jeff-master-brainsurgeon/

[JDS]

On Wed, 05 Apr 2006 16:01:40 -0700, Richard wrote:

Thanks, Jeff. I checked out you newtnotes. That's a nice idea. I
maintain a huge note directory, but I should organize as a web site.
Maybe sometime ...

Download and install a Wiki on your web server (assuming you have a web
server!): Wikimedia, PHPWiki, or similar. Then any time you have a note,
put it there instead of in a Word doc or text file or sticky pad or on the
back of your hand. In time, you will have your website. The Wiki
installation part takes almost no effort.

--
JDS | je*****@go.away.com
| http://www.newtnotes.com
DJMBS | http://newtnotes.com/doctor-jeff-master-brainsurgeon/

[Neredbojias]

To further the education of mankind, "Nik Coughlin" <nr******@gmail.com>
declaimed:

I should probably stop talking to myself, then

Oh man, please make the little voices stop

They have stopped. You are hearing only echoes.

--
Neredbojias
Infinity can have limits.

[Tony]

Nik Coughlin wrote:

Tony wrote:

Nik Coughlin wrote:

Nik, Tony, it's all the same :)

I should probably stop talking to myself, then

Oh man, please make the little voices stop

They're only little to you

[Richard]

Hi Ed,

By way of clarification only, this isn't the "Web." This is "Usenet."

There'd be no UseNet without the Web :-)

I've used newsgroups using a Newsreader that may not have been
available through UseNet (or didn't realize that it was).

Best wishes,
Richard

[Karl Groves]

"Richard" <Ri**********************@USComputerGurus.com> wrote in
news:11**********************@j33g2000cwa.googlegr oups.com:

Hi Ed,

By way of clarification only, this isn't the "Web." This is "Usenet."

There'd be no UseNet without the Web :-)

What? Usenet's been around since the early 80s.
--
Karl Groves
http://karlcore.com
http://chevelle.karlcore.com

Accessibility Discussion List: http://smallerurl.com/?id=6p764du

[Richard]

Hi Karl,

Usenet's been around since the early 80s.

What protocol did Usenet in the 80's? Isn't "The Web" really a set of
interconnect computer offering multiple physical paths (in case a
disaster) and a protocol to transmit across that network ... all
envisioned by the U.S. DOD in the 60's or 70'd?

Regards,
Richard

[neilr]

"Richard" <Ri**********************@USComputerGurus.com> wrote in message
news:11**********************@j33g2000cwa.googlegr oups.com...

Hi Karl,

Usenet's been around since the early 80s.

What protocol did Usenet in the 80's? Isn't "The Web" really a set of
interconnect computer offering multiple physical paths (in case a
disaster) and a protocol to transmit across that network ... all
envisioned by the U.S. DOD in the 60's or 70'd?

isn't that the Internet?

[Karl Groves]

"Richard" <Ri**********************@USComputerGurus.com> wrote in
news:11**********************@j33g2000cwa.googlegr oups.com:

Hi Karl,

Usenet's been around since the early 80s.

What protocol did Usenet in the 80's? Isn't "The Web" really a set of
interconnect computer offering multiple physical paths (in case a
disaster) and a protocol to transmit across that network ... all
envisioned by the U.S. DOD in the 60's or 70'd?

The "Worldwide Web" is *not* the Internet.
Please review - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Wide_Web

You are confusing the Internet (the interconnected network of networks)
with Tim Berners Lee's vision of the WWW. To us pedants, the terms are not
synonymous.
--
Karl Groves
http://karlcore.com
http://chevelle.karlcore.com

Accessibility Discussion List: http://smallerurl.com/?id=6p764du

[Mark Goodge]

On 6 Apr 2006 11:17:39 -0700, Richard put finger to keyboard and
typed:

Hi Karl,

Usenet's been around since the early 80s.
What protocol did Usenet in the 80's?

UUCP and tapes, initially.
Isn't "The Web" really a set of
interconnect computer offering multiple physical paths (in case a
disaster) and a protocol to transmit across that network ... all
envisioned by the U.S. DOD in the 60's or 70'd?

No, that's the Internet as a whole. The web is the section of the
Internet used for interconnected documents transmitted via HTTP, with
a subset of the web being documents designed specifically for display
via the web and marked up with HTML.

Mark
--
Visit: http://www.FridayFun.net - jokes, lyrics and ringtones
Listen: http://www.goodge.co.uk/files/dweeb.mp3 - you'll love it!

[kchayka]

JDS wrote:

1) Start with a plain vanilla HTML 4.01 strict page which has absolutely
zero author-imposed layou or design characteristics. USE SEMANTICALLY
CORRECT HTML!!
Good advice there.
2) Give classes and/or Id's to every element.
Not so good advice there. Why bloat the markup with stuff you don't
really need?
Also, you can start to add a smattering of <DIV>s here and there to force
the layout how you want it.

Excusing the word "force", this is where well-placed divs can eliminate
or reduce the need for the excessive class assignments in your #2.
Grouping elements in a div wrapper can make styling those elements a
breeze, using primarily descendant selectors.

div.content h2 {rules for h2 in the content area}
div.navbar h2 {different rules for h2 in the navigation area}

2 different parts of the page, different styling, no class selector
require on the individual h2 elements. It won't eliminate the need for
special class selectors, but should get rid of most.

Piece of cake.

--
Reply email address is a bottomless spam bucket.
Please reply to the group so everyone can share.

[Jonathan N. Little]

Richard wrote:

Hi Karl,

Usenet's been around since the early 80s.

What protocol did Usenet in the 80's? Isn't "The Web" really a set of
interconnect computer offering multiple physical paths (in case a
disaster) and a protocol to transmit across that network ... all
envisioned by the U.S. DOD in the 60's or 70'd?

Usenet does not require a webserver, but a newsserver...more akin to
email then a webpage I believe. DejaVue and now Google just repackage
the content into a webpage for folks without newsserver access or those
who are unaware of such access.

--
Take care,

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

[dorayme]

In article <pa****************************@example.invalid> ,
JDS <je*****@example.invalid> wrote:

On Thu, 06 Apr 2006 07:33:09 +1000, dorayme wrote:

Your very own "best practice" eh?

Maybe I should've said "my 'suggested method'"

No need to be too coy, some of your advice was good. That kchayka
fellow added some excellent points and revisions too. Adjust for
these and then simply assert best practice!

Incorporate and be bold!

--
dorayme

[Randal L. Schwartz]

>>>>> "Karl" == Karl Groves <ka**@NOSPAMkarlcore.com> writes:

Karl> The "Worldwide Web" is *not* the Internet.
Karl> Please review - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Wide_Web

Karl> You are confusing the Internet (the interconnected network of networks)
Karl> with Tim Berners Lee's vision of the WWW. To us pedants, the terms are not
Karl> synonymous.

And confusing The Internet for Usenet is also a gaffe of similar proportions.

--
Randal L. Schwartz - Stonehenge Consulting Services, Inc. - [phone]
<me****@stonehenge.com> <URL:http://www.stonehenge.com/merlyn/>
Perl/Unix/security consulting, Technical writing, Comedy, etc. etc.
See PerlTraining.Stonehenge.com for onsite and open-enrollment Perl training!
*** Free account sponsored by SecureIX.com ***
*** Encrypt your Internet usage with a free VPN account from http://www.SecureIX.com ***

[Richard]

Hey Neil, Karl, Mark & Jonathan,

You guys all seem to agree that I'm wrong in praising the Web for
providing the services I rely on in dealing with the myriad problems I
encounter in software development.

But according to the Wikipedia that one of you cited: "The World Wide
Web ("WWW" or simply the "'Web") is a global information space which
people can read-from and write-to via a large number of different
Internet-connected devices."

The key deal is: The Web is a global space we can read/write to/from
that is materialized on the Internet, the large number of
interconnected devices.

So, I assert that it is the Web that provides the services I'm thankful
to access to; Of course, I appreciate the 'Net that faciltates the
Web, but my focus is on the Web.

Do you guys think I still suffer a misconception?

Regards,
Richard

[JDS]

On Thu, 06 Apr 2006 15:25:30 -0500, kchayka wrote:

Excusing the word "force", this is where well-placed divs can eliminate
or reduce the need for the excessive class assignments in your #2.
Grouping elements in a div wrapper can make styling those elements a
breeze, using primarily descendant selectors.

Ah, so. Good clarifications.

Lets just hope that CSS newbs are reading threads such as these.

Tired...... to sleep i go

--
JDS | je*****@go.away.com
| http://www.newtnotes.com
DJMBS | http://newtnotes.com/doctor-jeff-master-brainsurgeon/

[Jonathan N. Little]

Richard wrote:

Hey Neil, Karl, Mark & Jonathan,

You guys all seem to agree that I'm wrong in praising the Web for
providing the services I rely on in dealing with the myriad problems I
encounter in software development.

But according to the Wikipedia that one of you cited: "The World Wide
Web ("WWW" or simply the "'Web") is a global information space which
people can read-from and write-to via a large number of different
Internet-connected devices."

The key deal is: The Web is a global space we can read/write to/from
that is materialized on the Internet, the large number of
interconnected devices.

So, I assert that it is the Web that provides the services I'm thankful
to access to; Of course, I appreciate the 'Net that faciltates the
Web, but my focus is on the Web.

Do you guys think I still suffer a misconception?

Just imprecise in your perception. Usenet predates the Web. Yes uses the
same hardware, the Internet, but is a different service than the WWW aka
Web. Even from your Wiki link a little farther along it stakes:

....The term is often mistakenly used as a synonym for the Internet
itself, but the Web is actually a service that operates over the
Internet, just like e-mail...

Notice the article separates email from the web as a separate service
over the Internet. Well Usenet is another service as well not a subset
of the Web see Usenet in the Wiki:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usenet
Usenet - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
--
Take care,

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

[Richard]

Hi Jonathan,

Usenet predates the Web
I accept that.
but is a different service than the WWW aka Web.

But I think the service you're talking about uses UUCP protocol, or
something like that. But I use Google Groups via HTTP, the Web
protocol. As I'm typing this, I see in the Address bar:
"http://groups.google.com/group/comp.infosystems.www.authoring.stylesheets/...".
There may be some lower-level protocol that drives Usenet, but *I*
wouldn't have known about if the higher-level HTTP didn't allow my
Google search to turn up a Usenet group in my browser.

That's why I celebrate the Web. It is the techology at that allowed me
to discover and ultimately access this NG (among many other things).
You and others may access it in a different manner, but I remain
blissfully ignorant about that except for the few details you and the
other guys imparted.

So has my perception gotten an enhanced standing in your eyes, or
should we just agree to disagree and go on trying to make computers do
neat tricks?

Best wishes,
Ricard

[Jerry Stuckle]

Richard wrote:

Hi Jonathan,

Usenet predates the Web

I accept that.

but is a different service than the WWW aka Web.

But I think the service you're talking about uses UUCP protocol, or
something like that. But I use Google Groups via HTTP, the Web
protocol. As I'm typing this, I see in the Address bar:
"http://groups.google.com/group/comp.infosystems.www.authoring.stylesheets/...".
There may be some lower-level protocol that drives Usenet, but *I*
wouldn't have known about if the higher-level HTTP didn't allow my
Google search to turn up a Usenet group in my browser.

That's why I celebrate the Web. It is the techology at that allowed me
to discover and ultimately access this NG (among many other things).
You and others may access it in a different manner, but I remain
blissfully ignorant about that except for the few details you and the
other guys imparted.

So has my perception gotten an enhanced standing in your eyes, or
should we just agree to disagree and go on trying to make computers do
neat tricks?

Best wishes,
Ricard

Richard,

Yes, and Google has to use UUCP protocol to access usenet - both to retrieve and
post messages. Without UUCP, Usenet (and Google Groups) wouldn't exist.

When you send email, you use SMTP protocol. When you receive it, you use POP3
or IMAP protocol. Email is also part of the internet. But because you use a
graphical interface, you don't see that.

A very little research on your part would show you there are much better ways to
access usenet than Google Groups.
--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.
js*******@attglobal.net
==================

[Jonathan N. Little]

Richard wrote:

Hi Jonathan,

Usenet predates the Web
I accept that.

but is a different service than the WWW aka Web.

But I think the service you're talking about uses UUCP protocol, or
something like that. But I use Google Groups via HTTP, the Web
protocol. As I'm typing this, I see in the Address bar:
"http://groups.google.com/group/comp.infosystems.www.authoring.stylesheets/...".

Did you not recall my previous statement:

"DejaVue and now Google just repackage the content into a webpage for
folks without newsserver access or those who are unaware of such access."

Usenet, like email is a separate service and and different protocol
(kinda like language for the service, NNTP for news and SMPT and POP3
for email) that predates the 'Web' HTTP the making of (graphic web pages).


There may be some lower-level protocol that drives Usenet, but *I*
wouldn't have known about if the higher-level HTTP didn't allow my
Google search to turn up a Usenet group in my browser.

I wouldn't really call it higher level, just a different protocol. Kind
of like TV and radio and wireless Ethernet. All use the common medium,
electromagnetic radiation but the service and protocols are different.

You may get email via a webpage with webmail and Usenet via a webpage
via a webpage with Google Groups but the process must be converted
first. Usenet as email does not use HTTP protocol it must be access via
the native protocol and Google or whatever must have a program to
convert and reformat the data into a webpage.
That's why I celebrate the Web. It is the techology at that allowed me
to discover and ultimately access this NG (among many other things).
You and others may access it in a different manner, but I remain
blissfully ignorant about that except for the few details you and the
other guys imparted.

So has my perception gotten an enhanced standing in your eyes, or
should we just agree to disagree and go on trying to make computers do
neat tricks?

I guess the important point here is that Usenet requires NNTP, Google
Group is just Usenet data reformatted into a webpage but does not
replace Usenet.

--
Take care,

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

[Richard]

Hi Jerry,

much better ways to access usenet than Google Groups

OK, I did "A very little research". I visited http://www.disenter.com/
and observed their claim of monitoring 56,000+ servers.

I searched for Ruby: it reported 117 NGs, but didn't list any
(presumably because of heavy load on their servers). Ajax: one
listing, but for soccer. C++: regexp failure. C#: 0.

I don't think that site serves me better than Google Groups, which
lists groups in categories and recommends related groups. I'm
presently registered in almost a dozen NGs on Google. They were easy
to find, easy to assess in terms of number of users and frequency of
response.

I'm glad you feel well servered by Usenet. I think I'll stick to my
"church", which I think of as the Web, no mind if I happen
occassionally to use my Outlook Express newsreader or whether a site I
visit uses a newsreader to serve me web pages.

Best wishes,
Richard

[Richard]

Hi Jonathan,

I guess the important point here is that Usenet requires NNTP, Google

Group is just Usenet data reformatted into a webpage but does not
replace Usenet.

I understand exactly the point you're making. For people that think
about protocol stacks and other aspects of digital communicationsm
those caveats are significant. That's presumably your baliwick.

For me, I access Google Groups via a Web protocol to get answers to
occassional technical questions. That those answers arrive abetted by
some other protocols doesn't diminish my appreciation for the Web.
Some might think I should be equally appreciative of Edison's DC
generators or Westinghouse's alternators, but that wasn't my focus
when I exclaimed, Hooray for the Web.

Thanks for enlightening me, however.

Best wishes,
Richard