59  4505 
> Barry Pearson wrote: obviously unsupported b*llsh*t like "Stop abusing markup and use
this new method of layout" won't get anywhere!
There is places for table layout still, but I don't think you even know
when that would be.
In article Brian wrote: Using blockquote for an indent is abusing markup. That is not bull. It
is quite obvious to anyone with a cursory knowledge of html.
And, it looks stupid when there is blockquote when it surely isn't. I
just saw page where contact information was marked as blockquote. Well, I
wouldn't trust that webdesigner.
People _do_ use browsers that render blockquotes and tables differently.
They do it because they _can_ use different rendering, that is more
clear, not because thay can't use normal way.
There is more and more people using userstyles, some of them such that
don't know CSS themselfes, but use someone others stylesheets. Two years
ago, they were rare. Today, it is very easy to use userstyles, compared
to situation then. That means it has come more popular. I think that big
hit will be when Opera 7 gets its stylesheet thing work like
skin/toolbar/menu/shortcut things, so that people can add stylesheets
easily. Then they aren't "for advanged users only" stuff anymore.
--
Lauri Raittila <http://www.iki.fi/lr> <http://www.iki.fi/zwak/fonts>
Saapi lähettää meiliä, jos aihe ei liity ryhmään, tai on yksityinen
tjsp., mutta älä lähetä samaa viestiä meilitse ja ryhmään.
In article <MP************************@news.odyssey.net>,
Stan Brown <th************@fastmail.fm> writes: It seems "Nick Kew" wrote in
comp.infosystems.www.authoring.stylesheets:You are aware that David Siegel later retracted that view and issued
a public apology for the damage he'd done in teaching bad practice?
I was intrigued enough to did through Google for this, and here's a
link to "The Web is Ruined and I Ruined it":
Did you have an actual apology of Siegel's in mind?
No, I think I probably had that (or some version of same) in the back
of my mind. Apologies for any inaccuracies.
--
Nick Kew
Brian wrote: Barry Pearson wrote:
We must not say "CSS can't do X, therefore it is wrong to expect
web pages to look like X".
But we should say, "the web cannot do that, or cannot do that well,
therefore it is wrong to expect a web technology to produce that
result.
The web can demonstrably do table-layout well, and quite a bit of
tableless-layout well, so what the web is good at is a superset of both of
these, plus lots of other things besides.
I believe that there possibilities using hybrid schemes that will show that
the web can do better than either scheme by itself. But this needs people who
are willing to examine them, instead of blocking off certain options. Can you show that CSS1+2 was ever intended to be a page layout
language?
Yes, but simply looking at the spec.
You appear to have a private opinion about it. But that doesn't answer my
question - can you *show* it was *intended*? Were there terms of reference of
the form "CSS2 is intended to be page layout language"? Was there a
demonstration that what was proposed was actually able to satisfy the
page-layout requirements known at the time? Can you show that it would be competent at the task even if all
browsers supported it?
Since they do not, how do you propose one make such a demonstration?
Does that mean you *can't* in fact show it? This is the point I am making
here - I believe that it was *not* actually intended to satisfy the
page-layout needs known at the time, and that even if browsers supported it
that would not be sufficient. If CSS1+2 had really been designed for page layout, we would have
known how to do basic layouts by early 1998, and would just have
been waiting for the technology to arrive. But even in 2000, W3C
used tables for some of their pages because they couldn't make
alternatives work.
And that was because of faults in the css recommendations? Or because
their implementation was found wanting?
I believe it was both of those, and others:
- Float: "... floats were not originally intended to be used for layout, some
hacks may be necessary to make them behave as intended.... Looking to the
future, there have been a variety of proposed enhancements to CSS that would
allow an author to declare that an element should stretch to contain any
floated elements within itself.... but as of this writing, support for such
abilities is likely to be a long time coming".
Eric Meyer, Complex Spiral Consulting, Containing Floats http://www.complexspiral.com/publica...aining-floats/
- Position: "And much of the blame for this must be directed at CSS itself....
And while, thanks to their efforts, the main problems of how to produce
workable layouts from the CSS specification have now been cracked, there are
still innumerable smaller issues ready to raise their head and make the
designer's life a misery. Such as: how to consistently control margins and
padding to ensure alignment, how to set up a full-width footer section below
columns of varying length; how to vertically centre content; how to give a
coloured background to a side column that matches the height of a longer
content column; and so on. These are all givens with table-based layout and
should certainly have been addressed before CSS2 was allowed out of the door".
Tom Arah, The Future of Web Layout http://www.designer-info.com/Web/abs...ositioning.htm
- Position: "There were really only three things we couldn't do with this
redesign: properly position our partner-specific footer at the bottom of the
page, use vertical alignment within divs, and achieve validation. Positioning
footers is a huge Achilles heel of absolute positioning. It is ridiculous that
you cannot embed three absolutely positioned columns within a master div and
then position a footer below that master div. This is a well known problem of
absolute positioning and there are a few workarounds, none of which are very
elegant".
Mike Davidson of ESPN.com http://devedge.netscape.com/viewsour...-interview/02/
--
Barry Pearson http://www.Barry.Pearson.name/photography/ http://www.BirdsAndAnimals.info/ http://www.ChildSupportAnalysis.co.uk/
"Barry Pearson" <ne**@childsupportanalysis.co.uk> wrote in message
news:id***************@newsfep3-gui.server.ntli.net... Brian wrote: Barry Pearson wrote:
We must not say "CSS can't do X, therefore it is wrong to expect
web pages to look like X".
But we should say, "the web cannot do that, or cannot do that well,
therefore it is wrong to expect a web technology to produce that
result.
The web can demonstrably do table-layout well, and quite a bit of
tableless-layout well, so what the web is good at is a superset of both of
these, plus lots of other things besides.
I believe that there possibilities using hybrid schemes that will show
that the web can do better than either scheme by itself. But this needs people
who are willing to examine them, instead of blocking off certain options.
Can you show that CSS1+2 was ever intended to be a page layout
language?
Yes, but simply looking at the spec.
You appear to have a private opinion about it. But that doesn't answer my
question - can you *show* it was *intended*? Were there terms of reference
of the form "CSS2 is intended to be page layout language"? Was there a
demonstration that what was proposed was actually able to satisfy the
page-layout requirements known at the time?
Can you show that it would be competent at the task even if all
browsers supported it?
Since they do not, how do you propose one make such a demonstration?
Does that mean you *can't* in fact show it? This is the point I am making
here - I believe that it was *not* actually intended to satisfy the
page-layout needs known at the time, and that even if browsers supported
it that would not be sufficient.
If CSS1+2 had really been designed for page layout, we would have
known how to do basic layouts by early 1998, and would just have
been waiting for the technology to arrive. But even in 2000, W3C
used tables for some of their pages because they couldn't make
alternatives work.
And that was because of faults in the css recommendations? Or because
their implementation was found wanting?
I believe it was both of those, and others:
- Float: "... floats were not originally intended to be used for layout,
??? I can't think of how one distinguishes positioning meant for layout from
positioning not meant for layout.
[snip]
- Position: "And much of the blame for this must be directed at CSS
itself.... And while, thanks to their efforts, the main problems of how to produce
workable layouts from the CSS specification have now been cracked, there
are still innumerable smaller issues ready to raise their head and make the
designer's life a misery. Such as: how to consistently control margins and
padding to ensure alignment, how to set up a full-width footer section
below columns of varying length; how to vertically centre content; how to give a
coloured background to a side column that matches the height of a longer
content column; and so on. These are all givens with table-based layout
and should certainly have been addressed before CSS2 was allowed out of the
door". Tom Arah, The Future of Web Layout
http://www.designer-info.com/Web/abs...ositioning.htm
Whatever happened to XSL:FO?
Barry Pearson wrote: Brian wrote:
Barry Pearson wrote:
We must not say "CSS can't do X, therefore it is wrong to
expect web pages to look like X".
But we should say, "the web cannot do that, or cannot do that
well, therefore it is wrong to expect a web technology to produce
that result.
The web can demonstrably do table-layout well, and quite a bit of
tableless-layout well, so what the web is good at is a superset of
both of these, plus lots of other things besides.
The only reason I can think of to use table layout is to "force" a
grid layout where css would fail. On the www, the more an author tries
to force things to get a presentation he wants in a subset of
browsers, the greater the risk that the presentation will fall apart
in situations outside of that subset. This applies to layout, and to
other presentation aspects as well.
Lauri Raittila perhaps has something useful to add here.
Can you show that CSS1+2 was ever intended to be a page layout
language?
Yes, but simply looking at the spec.
[that should have read "Yes, *by* simply looking at the spec"]
You appear to have a private opinion about it.
The css spec is not private.
http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-CSS1
http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-CSS2/
But that doesn't answer my question - can you *show* it was
*intended*? Were there terms of reference of the form "CSS2 is
intended to be page layout language"?
<sarcasm>
No, Barry, they included properties like position, margin, and padding
as a big practical joke on us web designers. And only you discovered
that "truth" that you've been peddling, that really, html is good at
layout, that css is bad at layout, that tables for layout are good, etc.
</sarcasm>
(BTW, why only tables for layout? Why don't you go full throttle and
recommend <blockquote> for layout? Or list markup?)
Can you show that it would be competent at the task even if all
browsers supported it?
Since they do not, how do you propose one make such a
demonstration?
Does that mean you *can't* in fact show it?
Are you, in the end, merely trolling? Or just a bit slow on the
uptake? Don't answer the question with a question. All browsers do not
support css well. And MSIE/Win's support is very shabby. If you refuse
to aknowledge that, then quit reading this message here. If you can,
then you must admit that it's damn well impossible to demonstrate that
CSS would work in an environment that does not exist.
I believe that it was *not* actually intended to satisfy the
page-layout needs known at the time, and that even if browsers
supported it that would not be sufficient.
You make stuff up, then repeat it ad nauseum. We have already given
you all the evidence you need. Ignore it if it gives you a thrill.
I believe it was both of those, and others:
- Float: "... floats were not originally intended to be used for
[repetitive content snipped]
Yes, Barry, you *already* posted all this material. Must you waste
bandwidth?
--
Brian (follow directions in my address to email me) http://www.tsmchughs.com/
Harlan Messinger wrote: "Barry Pearson" <ne**@childsupportanalysis.co.uk> wrote in message
news:id***************@newsfep3-gui.server.ntli.net...
[snip] - Float: "... floats were not originally intended to be used for layout,
??? I can't think of how one distinguishes positioning meant for
layout from positioning not meant for layout.
For that particular quote you would have to ask Eric Meyer, who wrote it.
Obviously, I am not qualified to speak for him! http://www.complexspiral.com/publica...aining-floats/
But my own analysis is that page-layout of the main objects in a page is
vastly different in a number of ways from layout within those main objects. So
the distinction is between *page* layout and *other* layout. This actually
translates into different types of mark-up. For example, page-layout mark-up
is often designed to achieve a particular presentation well in advance of a
particular article being thought of. But when the article is thought of, the
logical mark-up for that article depends on the details of that particular
article. Which comes first, content or mark-up? The answer is often
"page-layout mark-up comes first, then the content, then the
logical/structural mark-up".
I am writing up some stuff on this, based partly on my views as a
photographer. This doesn't *necessarily* translate to the web, but I actually
think there are some relevent lessons. At the top-level, we need to be able to
locate the major objects rapidly - banner, site navigation, main content,
side-notes, administrative footer, etc. If we can't find those easily, we can
get lost. (And visually-disabled people, including blind people using speaking
browsers, can have particular problems there). I recently developed some
tableless-layout templates, but these take into account the way people in
"western" cultures scan top to bottom, left to right, and my layouts do not
have mirror-image symmetrical versions, even though this would be trivial to
do. http://www.barry.pearson.name/articles/templates/
Once we are within one of those major objects, the eye+brain can track very
well. Think of "word-wrap", or floating something to the right then scanning
the text that flows round it. It just doesn't matter where the line-breaks
occur, or where the right hand sides of lines are. The eye+brain is so good at
finding the continuation of a sentence within the field of view that we don't
even notice.
But think of our problems if we can't even find the article within out field
of view. Or if the article itself wraps. Think of the irritation of "article
continued on page X", etc. We appear to have one set of abilities to find and
track the major objects, and another set to feed the data-elements into the
brain in a stream. I think this is a lesson from the Impressionists, who tend
to get the overall objects positioned properly, but may lose the detail within
them. Which is what some of my photographs *deliberately* do. See these
discussions about the implications for web pages:
Visual hierarchy http://www.webstyleguide.com/page/hierarchy.html
Optimal web design http://psychology.wichita.edu/optimalweb/print.htm
[snip] - Position: "And much of the blame for this must be directed at CSS
itself.... And while, thanks to their efforts, the main problems of
how to produce workable layouts from the CSS specification have now
been cracked, there are still innumerable smaller issues ready to
raise their head and make the designer's life a misery. Such as: how
to consistently control margins and padding to ensure alignment, how
to set up a full-width footer section below columns of varying
length; how to vertically centre content; how to give a coloured
background to a side column that matches the height of a longer
content column; and so on. These are all givens with table-based
layout and should certainly have been addressed before CSS2 was
allowed out of the door". Tom Arah, The Future of Web Layout
http://www.designer-info.com/Web/abs...ositioning.htm
Whatever happened to XSL:FO?
(Extensible Stylesheet Language Formatting Objects)
I have no idea!
--
Barry Pearson http://www.Barry.Pearson.name/photography/ http://www.BirdsAndAnimals.info/ http://www.ChildSupportAnalysis.co.uk/
On Mon, 02 Feb 2004 23:05:20 GMT, Brian
<us*****@julietremblay.com.invalid-remove-this-part> wrote: <sarcasm>
No, Barry, they included properties like position, margin, and padding
as a big practical joke on us web designers. And only you discovered
that "truth" that you've been peddling, that really, html is good at
layout, that css is bad at layout, that tables for layout are good, etc.
</sarcasm>
<timecube>
Evil teachers and web developers try to brainwash you to think that CSS is
the "truth" when it is a LIE. Do you want to be a LIAR? There are four
table tags - <table> <tr> <td> and </table>. Don't believe the lie there
is only ONE layout techique when any FOOl can clearly see it is a LIE.
</timecube>
"Lauri Raittila" <la***@raittila.cjb.net> wrote in message
news:MP************************@news.cis.dfn.de... In article Rijk van Geijtenbeek wrote: On Sat, 31 Jan 2004 17:18:10 GMT, Brian
<us*****@julietremblay.com.invalid-remove-this-part> wrote: Barry Pearson wrote:> People think and demand grid-like layout.
Grid layout is not tabular layout. DTP programs don't offer table
data blocks to layout e.g. a flyer. They use blocks with a grid and
rulers. grid <> table
Problem is, there is no easy 'grid' capability in CSS. CSS 2 introduced
something that goes a long way (but witpout spanning cells across rows
or columns), which works OK in Opera and Mozilla. But it doesn't work in
MSIE.
The problem is that authors want to have grid. That is biggest problem
with most table layouts - they wan't it to be grid. Grid is much less
flexible as almost anything else. The reason is that it can't wrap.
There's no reason why a grid can't be implemented to wrap, just as the hack
of using floating inline-block DIVs wraps. The software can show it as a
grid unless some minimum viewport width is reached, and then it can start
wrapping the cells.
Brian wrote: Barry Pearson wrote: Brian wrote: Barry Pearson wrote:
We must not say "CSS can't do X, therefore it is wrong to
expect web pages to look like X".
But we should say, "the web cannot do that, or cannot do that
well, therefore it is wrong to expect a web technology to produce
that result.
The web can demonstrably do table-layout well, and quite a bit of
tableless-layout well, so what the web is good at is a superset of
both of these, plus lots of other things besides.
The only reason I can think of to use table layout is to "force" a
grid layout where css would fail. On the www, the more an author tries
to force things to get a presentation he wants in a subset of
browsers, the greater the risk that the presentation will fall apart
in situations outside of that subset. This applies to layout, and to
other presentation aspects as well.
The problem with your 2nd sentence there, as with so many other
anti-layout-table statements, is that layout-tables demonstrably work in
practice! They have been doing so for several years, and no doubt will
continue to do so for many years. The overwhelming majority of web pages
already out there, and new ones put onto the web each day, use table-layout.
And if the author hasn't been silly they are accessible, and have good
performance.
I recognise that you and others have views that this is somehow abuse of
certain concepts of HTML. And you are entitled to choose your own working
practices, at least within reason. But that is vastly different whether or not
it works in practice, and will continue to work in future, and therefore can
confidently be used. It does, it will, and it can. Simple layout tables are
very flexible right across a lot of browsers - your 2nd sentence could be
interpreted as saying otherwise. If they are not over-controlled, they adapt
very well to content and viewport width.
I keep both tools in my toolkit. I think it is sensible for others to do the
same. But if you choose not to, that is obviously your right.
[snip] But that doesn't answer my question - can you *show* it was
*intended*? Were there terms of reference of the form "CSS2 is
intended to be page layout language"?
<sarcasm>
No, Barry, they included properties like position, margin, and padding
as a big practical joke on us web designers. And only you discovered
that "truth" that you've been peddling, that really, html is good at
layout, that css is bad at layout, that tables for layout are good,
etc. </sarcasm>
And note how I talked about "page layout", but your response is about
"layout". There is no doubt that CSS was designed to layout the *contents* of
the (say) key boxes on a page - the banner, the clolumns (if any), the footer,
or whatever else the page has on it. It typically does an excellent job on
those contents. But that is what the CSS Recommendations focus their examples
on. Except for the use of fixed positioning to layout the viewport as an
alternative to frames.
W3C says the following: "When designing a document or series of documents,
content developers should strive first to identify the desired structure for
their documents before thinking about how the documents will be presented to
the user". But *in practice*, authors/designers (whether using table-layout or
tableless-layout) often design an outer-level mark-up (perhaps no more than 10
elements, often less) to support their chosen layout options, working in
conjunction with the CSS. They then re-use this "template" for a number of
pages. The content is put into these pages, and marked-up, perhaps according
to logic/structure/semantics. But the first mark-up for a new document is
often mark-up designed *specifically* to enable the chosen layout to be
achieved. In effect, that "template" and its associated CSS is a substitute
for what I am calling a page layout language.
Here is an example of such top-level mark-up. It is fairly simple, and very
flexible, as would be expected given the author. But it still exists in that
form for *layout* purposes, not for what would normally be called "structural
mark-up".
http://devedge.netscape.com/viewsour...-redesign-css/
I tend to do simpler things than that, so my outer elements tend to be fewer.
They may be something like the following for a very simple page. (I don't
think I've used anything quite this simple, but they give a flavour). The
first being the sort of layout table I might use, the second the sort of
mark-up I may use if I'm floating a sidebar into position. They each have
advantages and disadvantages, depending on default (no-CSS) behaviour wanted,
column colours, cross-browser confidence without being able test across a
number of platforms, etc.
<table id="twocolumns"><tr>
<td id="sidebar"> navigation etc </td>
<td id="maincolumn"> main content </td>
</tr></table>
<div id="twocolumns">
<div id="sidebar"> navigation etc </div>
<div id="maincolumn"> main content </div>
</div>
(BTW, why only tables for layout? Why don't you go full throttle and
recommend <blockquote> for layout? Or list markup?)
[snip]
Because those are very easy to do with CSS. 2 tools are not necessary, or even
very useful. But layout-tables are a powerful layout-technique with industrial
strength that are useful to have in one's tookit.
--
Barry Pearson http://www.Barry.Pearson.name/photography/ http://www.BirdsAndAnimals.info/ http://www.ChildSupportAnalysis.co.uk/ This thread has been closed and replies have been disabled. Please start a new discussion. Similar topics
by: claus.hirth |
last post by:
If I create the function HELLO in schema S01 as follows,
@
CREATE FUNCTION S01.HELLO()
RETURNS VARCHAR(32)
EXTERNAL NAME 'UDFSRVXYZ!sayHelloWorld'
LANGUAGE JAVA
PARAMETER STYLE DB2GENERAL
NO...
|
by: Jukka58 |
last post by:
Hello!
We have two computers and two programmers. One programmer for Ms Access 2000
and one programmer VB6 pro and applicartion.
Access database is large system and i not will transfer data to...
|
by: mithaelin |
last post by:
ok, I can't get out of this riddle and Google seems can't help me.
The problem is that this code doesn't work in iexplorer while it's
perfect in other browser (didn't check in safari):
<html>...
|
by: divyakgowda |
last post by:
Take one example where there will be 2 combo boxes. One for the project and another one for types. I have used observe field for types combo box which observes project field and updates div of types....
|
by: divyakgowda |
last post by:
I have 3 fields project,type,program .Program should be enable only if
type=1(some predef value)but program values should be based on project
values.I tried to use observe form and rjs.I could not...
|
by: Soumen |
last post by:
Hi,
I've requirement to observe a raw pointer (i.e. I should be able to
query if the pointer I'm using is still valid or not but when the
observer goes out of scope, the resource -- memory --...
|
by: C. Herzog |
last post by:
Hi!
I want to create a huge amount of classes. All classes have in common
that the change of a property should fire an Change-Event and maybe do
other things. I don't want to write thousand...
|
by: Charles Arthur |
last post by:
How do i turn on java script on a villaon, callus and itel keypad mobile phone
|
by: emmanuelkatto |
last post by:
Hi All, I am Emmanuel katto from Uganda. I want to ask what challenges you've faced while migrating a website to cloud.
Please let me know.
Thanks!
Emmanuel
|
by: BarryA |
last post by:
What are the essential steps and strategies outlined in the Data Structures and Algorithms (DSA) roadmap for aspiring data scientists? How can individuals effectively utilize this roadmap to progress...
|
by: Sonnysonu |
last post by:
This is the data of csv file
1 2 3
1 2 3
1 2 3
1 2 3
2 3
2 3
3
the lengths should be different i have to store the data by column-wise with in the specific length.
suppose the i have to...
|
by: Hystou |
last post by:
There are some requirements for setting up RAID:
1. The motherboard and BIOS support RAID configuration.
2. The motherboard has 2 or more available SATA protocol SSD/HDD slots (including MSATA, M.2...
|
by: Hystou |
last post by:
Most computers default to English, but sometimes we require a different language, especially when relocating. Forgot to request a specific language before your computer shipped? No problem! You can...
|
by: Oralloy |
last post by:
Hello folks,
I am unable to find appropriate documentation on the type promotion of bit-fields when using the generalised comparison operator "<=>".
The problem is that using the GNU compilers,...
|
by: jinu1996 |
last post by:
In today's digital age, having a compelling online presence is paramount for businesses aiming to thrive in a competitive landscape. At the heart of this digital strategy lies an intricately woven...
|
by: agi2029 |
last post by:
Let's talk about the concept of autonomous AI software engineers and no-code agents. These AIs are designed to manage the entire lifecycle of a software development project—planning, coding, testing,...
| |
