By using this site, you agree to our updated Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Manage your Cookies Settings.
438,624 Members | 2,179 Online
Bytes IT Community
+ Ask a Question
Need help? Post your question and get tips & solutions from a community of 438,624 IT Pros & Developers. It's quick & easy.

CSS specs - reformatted

P: n/a
Hi,

Here are some HTML and CSS specs that I have reformatted:
http://www.visiomode.com/docs/

I hope somebody else finds them useful too... The CHMs are quite good for
checking things quickly, locally, and the web versions may be nice too.

--
Ilkka
Jul 20 '05 #1
Share this Question
Share on Google+
16 Replies


P: n/a
Ilkka Huotari wrote:
Hi,

Here are some HTML and CSS specs that I have reformatted:
http://www.visiomode.com/docs/
You put them in a frame. You opened new window, and managed to get rid of
my status bar somehow. You use ugly and unobvious link styling, no
margins/paddings etc

You missed some usefull markup, like <link> and <a>'s for navigation
inside documents, and between documents
I hope somebody else finds them useful too... The CHMs are quite good for
checking things quickly, locally, and the web versions may be nice too.


Search looks useful marginally usefull. But when you find something, you
have no means to get to the next piece of spec. For example for float,
you have no way to get next section, exept starting from beginning,
meaning that book image, that dont have alt text.

It also does not indicate which spec it is showing.

Well, some good ideas, but implementation sucks big time.

A-image links to badly made 40x site

--
Lauri Raittila <http://www.iki.fi/lr> <http://www.iki.fi/zwak/fonts>
I'm looking for work | Etsin työtä
Jul 20 '05 #2

P: n/a
> You put them in a frame.

There is a noframes section too. Did you check that?
You opened new window, and managed to get rid of
my status bar somehow.
I think at least IE 6.0 loses status bar quite often.
You use ugly and unobvious link styling,
Thanks for the opinions. I think the links are just fine though.
no
margins/paddings etc
Where?

And why do you sound so nitpicking? Yes I know it's quite common in news
groups though. I something isn't perfect, then it must suck.
Search looks useful marginally usefull. But when you find something, you
have no means to get to the next piece of spec. For example for float,
you have no way to get next section, exept starting from beginning,
meaning that book image, that dont have alt text.
Search is marginally useful? Wow.

I can take a look at the "next section" though, it isn't there yet.
It also does not indicate which spec it is showing.
Click the "book" icon.
Well, some good ideas, but implementation sucks big time.

A-image links to badly made 40x site


40x site? The site is valid xhtml 1.0. Jesus. There is even a validate
button.

In the viewer there has been made some compromises to maintain the browser
compatibility, but of course you missed that?

There are some room for improvement, but theviewer works in quite many
browsers. Try Lynx.

Regards,
Ilkka

Jul 20 '05 #3

P: n/a
Ilkka Huotari wrote:
Search is marginally useful? Wow.


It doesn't give much benefit over the various indexes in the official specs
combined with Find-as-you-type.

--
David Dorward <http://blog.dorward.me.uk/> <http://dorward.me.uk/>
Jul 20 '05 #4

P: n/a
> It doesn't give much benefit over the various indexes in the official
specs
combined with Find-as-you-type.


Ok. This sounds a bit more like a conversation. It just gets to me when
there is a certain attitude present...

Yes, well, there are different methods for searching, something for
different people. I have used those CHMs a lot on my local machines, and I
have found they quite handy. Try them, you will learn to like them :-)

Ilkka
Jul 20 '05 #5

P: n/a
Ilkka Huotari wrote:
Yes, well, there are different methods for searching, something for
different people. I have used those CHMs a lot on my local machines, and I
have found they quite handy. Try them, you will learn to like them :-)


I doubt it - the emulation layer I would have to run to get a CHM to work
would be less then fun.

--
David Dorward <http://blog.dorward.me.uk/> <http://dorward.me.uk/>
Jul 20 '05 #6

P: n/a
Ilkka Huotari wrote:
You put them in a frame.
There is a noframes section too. Did you check that?


No. Of course not. Neither does anybody else, unless used lynx etc that
don't support frames the way most browsers do.

Tested it again, now frames turned off, and it was useless. Compared to
real spec, of course.

The problems with frames has nothing to do with browsers not able to show
them, on contrary.

But in your case, frame can actually be useful. You should allow people
to use good features of them, like changing frame size, otherwise they
are there only to cause problems.
You opened new window, and managed to get rid of
my status bar somehow.


I think at least IE 6.0 loses status bar quite often.


Why are you opening new window anyway? What's wrong in current?
Your new window is too big to my parent-window, but magically it fits
just fine my default window size.

Anyway, I use Opera 7.5, so it is more than one browser lusing bar, and
it was really addressbar, I just use it as statusbar.
You use ugly and unobvious link styling,


Thanks for the opinions. I think the links are just fine though.


I was wondering why you have removed all links, but then I understood
that you just changed them, so they didn't look links that much. OTOH, I
might have noticed them as links, if I was not so familiar with
specifications, and their link style.

IMHO, it is ugly, if underline is that far away from text. Of course, it
is not undersline, but it emulates one.

http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/www/links.html
no
margins/paddings etc


Where?


HTML4 sepc > about html spec > copyright notice > any of those links
But that might be issue on my browser too, but IMHO you should use
target=_top for outbound links.
And why do you sound so nitpicking?
If you have 100 small and medium size problems on your site, I can't
point out anything big.
Yes I know it's quite common in news
groups though. I something isn't perfect, then it must suck.
No, this really sucks. I have actully called websites good, after
pointing out few pagefulls problems. Your one big problem is that you
can't say that your content is better than other peoples. So you need to
make it more usable than others have done. If you fail that, your page
sucks.
Search looks useful
Yes, only reason I considered when saying it has some good ideas.
marginally usefull.
I mean, compared to other searches (I need to write something on
addressfield and press ctrl + s + c to google search CSS2 on it - it is
not easy to beat that and your thing don't really, but it is most likely
usefull for someone else not having this option). Make it even more
powerfull, and it will become really useful.
But when you find something, you
have no means to get to the next piece of spec. For example for float,
you have no way to get next section, exept starting from beginning,
meaning that book image, that dont have alt text. I can take a look at the "next section" though, it isn't there yet.
What you mean, I can't understand the sentence? There is no such feature?
Anyway, whan you do this, you could define <link>s to go next section,
previous section, toc, index etc.
It also does not indicate which spec it is showing.
I can see it now, it is in the title, so I was mistaken.
Click the "book" icon.
Well, that will replace my search. BTW, why not use text link "table of
contents", instead of this book icon?
A-image links to badly made 40x site


40x site? The site is valid xhtml 1.0. Jesus. There is even a validate
button.


Page that is not there, 404, most likely (but it doesn't say which error
code it was - so badly made, irrelevant if is valid xhtml). It doesn't do
that now, now the button does nothing, exept reload current page.

Says:

Sorry....
Seems that the page you tried to find no longer exists. Check out Netdoc,
our collaborative documentation software instead...

It seems quite misleading 404 error page, as it says that no longer
exists. You really had page http://www.visiomode.com/bogus404usedtoexist
before? Why was it deleted?
In the viewer there has been made some compromises to maintain the browser
compatibility, but of course you missed that?
What? I can't unfortunately not see any.
There are some room for improvement, but theviewer works in quite many
browsers. Try Lynx.


The problem with your site is that it is not as good as orginal spec. Try
orginal and your with lynx. BTW, I was unable to get your search find
anything using lynx.
--
Lauri Raittila <http://www.iki.fi/lr> <http://www.iki.fi/zwak/fonts>
I'm looking for work | Etsin työtä
Jul 20 '05 #7

P: n/a
"Lauri Raittila" <la***@raittila.cjb.net> wrote in message
news:MP************************@news.individual.ne t...
Tested it again, now frames turned off, and it was useless. Compared to
real spec, of course.
Subjectively speaking of course? The usage is different, and I wouldn't say
it's useless, actually I don't like the real spec that much compared to this
frameless version even.
But in your case, frame can actually be useful. You should allow people
to use good features of them, like changing frame size, otherwise they
are there only to cause problems.
Yes I think so too - that the frames are good here and that's why they are
there. The left frame can be resized.
Why are you opening new window anyway? What's wrong in current?
Your new window is too big to my parent-window, but magically it fits
just fine my default window size.
OK, I can think of this again, maybe the new window get's in the way.

There is no magic involved though, just plain programming.
If you have 100 small and medium size problems on your site, I can't
point out anything big.
Site? Are you speaking about the site or this viewer?
Your one big problem is that you
can't say that your content is better than other peoples.
There is the software for example, which is content.
I mean, compared to other searches (I need to write something on
addressfield and press ctrl + s + c to google search CSS2 on it - it is
not easy to beat that and your thing don't really, but it is most likely
usefull for someone else not having this option).
?
Well, that will replace my search. BTW, why not use text link "table of
contents", instead of this book icon?
For reasons to keep the UI similar to some other viewers.
A-image links to badly made 40x site


40x site? The site is valid xhtml 1.0. Jesus. There is even a validate
button.


Page that is not there, 404, most likely (but it doesn't say which error
code it was - so badly made, irrelevant if is valid xhtml). It doesn't do
that now, now the button does nothing, exept reload current page.


Site? Page?
Says:

Sorry....
Seems that the page you tried to find no longer exists. Check out Netdoc,
our collaborative documentation software instead...

It seems quite misleading 404 error page, as it says that no longer
exists. You really had page http://www.visiomode.com/bogus404usedtoexist
before? Why was it deleted?


......
In the viewer there has been made some compromises to maintain the browser compatibility, but of course you missed that?


What? I can't unfortunately not see any.


Many, many...
There are some room for improvement, but theviewer works in quite many
browsers. Try Lynx.


The problem with your site is that it is not as good as orginal spec. Try
orginal and your with lynx. BTW, I was unable to get your search find
anything using lynx.


I could. The problem was probably that the search field is filled with a
value "Search", which in Lynx is confusing.

Ilkka


Jul 20 '05 #8

P: n/a
> > Yes, well, there are different methods for searching, something for
different people. I have used those CHMs a lot on my local machines, and I have found they quite handy. Try them, you will learn to like them :-)


I doubt it - the emulation layer I would have to run to get a CHM to work
would be less then fun.


You can try xCHM (http://xchm.sourceforge.net/) if you want.

I haven't tried it but they say it works on Linux and Mac.

Ilkka
Jul 20 '05 #9

P: n/a
Ilkka Huotari wrote:
"Lauri Raittila" <la***@raittila.cjb.net> wrote in message
news:MP************************@news.individual.ne t...
Tested it again, now frames turned off, and it was useless. Compared to
real spec, of course.
Subjectively speaking of course? The usage is different, and I wouldn't say
it's useless, actually I don't like the real spec that much compared to this
frameless version even.


You most likely tested with browser not supporting, or you not being
avare of, navigation based on <link> elements?
But in your case, frame can actually be useful. You should allow people
to use good features of them, like changing frame size, otherwise they
are there only to cause problems.


Yes I think so too - that the frames are good here and that's why they are
there. The left frame can be resized.


I was unable to do that. That becase you removed border between frames
(and for some odd reason force scrollbar.)
Why are you opening new window anyway? What's wrong in current?
Your new window is too big to my parent-window,


OK, I can think of this again, maybe the new window get's in the way.

but magically it fits just fine my default window size. There is no magic involved though, just plain programming.


By magic, I mean that when I pressed maximize button. Before that, it was
not right size at all, it was bigger than my parent window, so I was
unable to see it fully. I see that my explenation can be misunderstood by
people not using MDI browser.
If you have 100 small and medium size problems on your site, I can't
point out anything big.


Site? Are you speaking about the site or this viewer?


Everything I see after I get that new window.
Your one big problem is that you
can't say that your content is better than other peoples.


There is the software for example, which is content.


You asked critiq for CSS specs reformatted. I gave it. It can be also
considered critic for your CMS against other CMS
I mean, compared to other searches (I need to write something on
addressfield and press ctrl + s + c to google search CSS2 on it - it is
not easy to beat that and your thing don't really, but it is most likely
usefull for someone else not having this option).
Search feature of your site was not really very advanced. I almost same
in my browser GUI. If it had somethings that vere crafted specifically
for W3 specs, it would be much more usable than any generic tool.
Well, that will replace my search. BTW, why not use text link "table of
contents", instead of this book icon?


For reasons to keep the UI similar to some other viewers.


Like what? Never seen such icon. If you want to keep it, why not add text
next to icon?
> A-image links to badly made 40x site

40x site? The site is valid xhtml 1.0. Jesus. There is even a validate
button.


Page that is not there, 404, most likely (but it doesn't say which error
code it was - so badly made, irrelevant if is valid xhtml). It doesn't do
that now, now the button does nothing, exept reload current page.


Site? Page?


Any of those spec sites, I press A image, it tried to get to
http://www.visiomode.com/netdoc/help.php

It seems that there is not such problem anymore? Maybe it was unavailable
when I tried it.
What? I can't unfortunately not see any.


Many, many...


Well, much to do still.
BTW, I was unable to get your search find anything using lynx.


I could. The problem was probably that the search field is filled with a
value "Search", which in Lynx is confusing.


Yes, you are right. It is confusing. Does it have any advantage to haing
word search on left of search field? Not that I can see.

Of course, person more used to lynx would have known that - but does
someone really surf using lynx nowadays, exept when they can't get X
working?

--
Lauri Raittila <http://www.iki.fi/lr> <http://www.iki.fi/zwak/fonts>
I'm looking for work | Etsin työtä
Jul 20 '05 #10

P: n/a
You most likely tested with browser not supporting, or you not being
avare of, navigation based on <link> elements?
That was what I mean with "the next section isn't there yet"... that is,
those "next, previous, contents" which the real specs have in the bottom of
the screen.

However, you can go from one page to another by clicking Ctrl-Up/Down.
Except that Opera has defined Ctrl-Down/Up to a new meaning and it's a bit
confusing with Opera. And also, Opera doesn't seem to support
window.focus(), and you will have to manually move the focus to a "content"
frame.
(and for some odd reason force scrollbar.)
For a good reason, which doesn't belong into this thread. Some browsers are
clever enough not to show it though unless necessary.
By magic, I mean that when I pressed maximize button. Before that, it was
not right size at all, it was bigger than my parent window, so I was
unable to see it fully. I see that my explenation can be misunderstood by
people not using MDI browser.
Ok, I see that this is a problem and I'll probable get rid of the new
window.
Search feature of your site was not really very advanced. I almost same
in my browser GUI. If it had somethings that vere crafted specifically
for W3 specs, it would be much more usable than any generic tool.
I'm not planning to do a software to view only one manual, but the search
works for me very well.
Well, much to do still.
I see some minor corrections but of course I want to thank you for bringing
them on.
Of course, person more used to lynx would have known that - but does
someone really surf using lynx nowadays, exept when they can't get X
working?


Lynx is the least common denominator in a way. Above that we have the mobile
phones for example. Getting this work with Lynx is a good starting point to
think about the mobile phones.
--
Ilkka Huotari
Netdoc - http://www.visiomode.com/
Jul 20 '05 #11

P: n/a
Ilkka Huotari wrote:
You most likely tested with browser not supporting, or you not being
avare of, navigation based on <link> elements?
That was what I mean with "the next section isn't there yet"... that is,
those "next, previous, contents" which the real specs have in the bottom of
the screen.


Yes, and also <meta rel="next"> etc. things. OTOH, I have no idea if they
work with frames. You need advanced browser, such as OPera, Mozilla or
lynx to use them trought.
However, you can go from one page to another by clicking Ctrl-Up/Down.
No I can't. And, how on earth could I know that? I mean, if I have
section 11.1, there is no link to section 11.2 in the frame you have the
content. If you have the search on the right, you don't have any link to
next section. (I don't know if there is such sections)

What ctrl + uo/down does in your browser? In IE they seem to be exactly
same as up/down. Or have you done something to get ctrl + arrow act
differntly?
Except that Opera has defined Ctrl-Down/Up to a new meaning and it's a bit
confusing with Opera.
No, Opera is not confusing at all.
And also, Opera doesn't seem to support
window.focus(), and you will have to manually move the focus to a "content"
frame.
No, but I have disabled window.focus(), as is usually used something
annoying.
For a good reason, which doesn't belong into this thread. Some browsers are
clever enough not to show it though unless necessary.


<frame scrolling=yes marginwidth...">
^^^^^^^^^^^^^
You are explicitly asking scrollbar. Replace "yes" with "auto". Then
correctly working browsers can do the same as your "clever" browsers.
By magic, I mean that when I pressed maximize button. Before that, it was
not right size at all, it was bigger than my parent window, so I was
unable to see it fully. I see that my explenation can be misunderstood by
people not using MDI browser.


Ok, I see that this is a problem and I'll probable get rid of the new
window.


Good idea. I found a setting in Opera which I can use to force your
window right size, so I can cure half of the problem here, and many other
sites too.
Well, much to do still.


I see some minor corrections but of course I want to thank you for bringing
them on.


I certainly did not mention all problems I saw on your site.
Of course, person more used to lynx would have known that - but does
someone really surf using lynx nowadays, exept when they can't get X
working?


Lynx is the least common denominator in a way. Above that we have the mobile
phones for example. Getting this work with Lynx is a good starting point to
think about the mobile phones.


Irrelevant for my point, which was not to use value="search", but instead
<label>Search<input value="" ...></label>

--
Lauri Raittila <http://www.iki.fi/lr> <http://www.iki.fi/zwak/fonts>
I'm looking for work | Etsin työtä
Jul 20 '05 #12

P: n/a
> And, how on earth could I know that?

Well, I will add a help window from the "?" button from that.
No, but I have disabled window.focus(), as is usually used something
annoying.
I didn't explicitly disable it but it seems to be disabled.
You are explicitly asking scrollbar. Replace "yes" with "auto". Then
correctly working browsers can do the same as your "clever" browsers.


Yes I am and I already said it is for a good reason which doesn't belong
into this thread.
Lynx is the least common denominator in a way. Above that we have the mobile phones for example. Getting this work with Lynx is a good starting point to think about the mobile phones.


Irrelevant for my point, which was not to use value="search", but instead
<label>Search<input value="" ...></label>


I already said that it is confusing in Lynx, remember? That probably means
that I will change it in Lynx, don't you think so?

A free hint for you: think outside of the box before you blurt something
out.
--
Ilkka Huotari
Netdoc - http://www.visiomode.com/
Jul 20 '05 #13

P: n/a
> think outside of the box ...

And what I mean by that, is, that when you know enough, you know, that you
don't actually know enough...

You can appreciate the fact that there may be some circumstances and reasons
where certain knowledge from source X isn't enough. That the The Truth [tm]
maybe isn't that simple :) Sometimes it is, it sometimes the first thought
isn't enough.

Ilkka
Jul 20 '05 #14

P: n/a
Ilkka Huotari wrote:
think outside of the box ...
And what I mean by that, is, that when you know enough, you know, that you
don't actually know enough...


I know that I don't know enaugh. But I also know that I should not belive
someone that I have never seen/read before from face value, just because
he says to belive him.
You can appreciate the fact that there may be some circumstances and reasons
where certain knowledge from source X isn't enough. That the The Truth [tm]
maybe isn't that simple :) Sometimes it is, it sometimes the first thought
isn't enough.


I know quite lot about HTML+CSS, and browsers. I do not know much about
server side thingies etc, but I know that it is irrelevant when
evaluating the product, that is HTML+CSS +possibly JS. You can do
everything server side just fine. It may take lots of time, but it is
possible...

--
Lauri Raittila <http://www.iki.fi/lr> <http://www.iki.fi/zwak/fonts>
I'm looking for work | Etsin työtä
Jul 20 '05 #15

P: n/a
Ilkka Huotari wrote:
And, how on earth could I know that?
Well, I will add a help window from the "?" button from that.


I still don't know what you mean by ctrl+up/down. As ctrl+up/down is not
action, it is shortcut key to an action. It is quite big change, that if
it is browser function, it is in Opera, and I was able to use it just
fine. And, why make ? button, when you can make "help" link?
No, but I have disabled window.focus(), as is usually used something
annoying.


I didn't explicitly disable it but it seems to be disabled.


Or maybe you did something wrong. Like used non-standard JS? I don't know
about JS, but that is most common error, I think.
You are explicitly asking scrollbar. Replace "yes" with "auto". Then
correctly working browsers can do the same as your "clever" browsers.


Yes I am and I already said it is for a good reason which doesn't belong
into this thread.


Why do you think it does not belong to this thread? If there is good
reason to expicitly ask scrollbar, it would be very useful to know the
reason - after all, we might not be able to figure it out ourselves, and
make mistake about not doing as you do. But if you don't say why, I
assume you don't have any reason. BTW, you can change subject line if you
think it does not describe thread well enaugh.
Lynx is the least common denominator in a way. Above that we have the
Irrelevant for my point, which was not to use value="search", but instead
<label>Search<input value="" ...></label>


I already said that it is confusing in Lynx, remember? That probably means
that I will change it in Lynx, don't you think so?


So, your comment was irrelevant to my point. If you had not quoted that
part of my text, I wouldn't have thought it was related to my point. And
since I noticed that I had failed to mention use of label element before,
I stated my idea again.
A free hint for you: think outside of the box before you blurt something
out.


Free hint: making comments of other peoples boxed views is not good idea,
when you seem to be thinking at least as much inside your own box. And,
especially, as you as author of page, should consider other peoples views
useful, even if they wouldn't see outside their box - after all, they
most likely know their box better than you do.

Think about that comment of yours about not having text for that book
icon. That was pretty much thinking just your box, ie comparing your tool
to another similar tools, but not to web, where your product obviously is
supposed to work.
I had never seen such icon before. It was far from ovvious. As vere those
left and right arrows, I thought I could use them to move to next and
previus section of spec, but thay just dublicate my browser build in back
and forward functions¹. Of course, you purposefully tried to hide them,
whitout any reason, I assume.

[1] If you can find browser that dont have back and forward function,
tell us, so we can laugh at it together.
--
Lauri Raittila <http://www.iki.fi/lr> <http://www.iki.fi/zwak/fonts>
I'm looking for work | Etsin työtä
Jul 20 '05 #16

P: n/a
> Free hint: making comments of other peoples boxed views is not good idea,
when you seem to be thinking at least as much inside your own box. And,
especially, as you as author of page, should consider other peoples views
useful, even if they wouldn't see outside their box - after all, they
most likely know their box better than you do.


Yes you are absolutely right. Coming out of the box is difficult :-)

Ilkka
Jul 20 '05 #17

This discussion thread is closed

Replies have been disabled for this discussion.