DragonFly kernel List (threaded) for 2004-03
Re: HEADS UP: Website Overhaul
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
X-Trace: 1078974039 crater_reader.dragonflybsd.org 181 188.8.131.52
Xref: crater_reader.dragonflybsd.org dragonfly.kernel:4213
Gary Thorpe wrote:
> How about paragraphs and subheadings? Unless it is tabular data, it
> should not be tabularized. The only reason people do it is to get a
> magazine-like side list os links: its too bad a web page isn't a magazine.
Ugh. Without an enclosing table, every web browser on my systems will
render the page at 200-300 characters across each line. Completely
Dave Cuthert wrote:
>> Easier to keep the document separate from HTML completely and
>> preprocess it, bypassing buggy CSS implementations completely.
> You are ignoring the time spent developing the scripts in PERL or
> whatever that will have to do this preprocessing as well as increased
> time to serve the page, increased server load/memory/disk/cpu, increased
> network load due to larger documents, and increased rendering time for
> the client (things like lynx can just ignore stylsheets taht are not
> embedded in the document an not even fetch them).
You're ignoring the time spent debugging buggy CSS implementations. I
can rat off a Tcl or Python script in minutes. The last time I used
CSS, I spent hours trying to "fix" it.
And preprocessing imposes no server load. I preprocess the page once,
store the html file on the server. Keep the original content and the
script in CVS. Voila!
>> Yeah, but manually inserting tabs/spaces becomes almost WYSIWYG in
>> emacs. :-)
> WYSIWIG sucks. Thats why latex is still used widely for articles/papers
> and not MS-Word.
Only in CS journals. LaTeX never caught on much in the IEEE community.
For IEEE, we usually use FrameMaker. Though I had to use Word for my
latest paper (because my collaborators didn't have Frame). Ouch. I had
a hard time believing it, but Word XP is *worse* than Word 2000 at
WYSIWYG only "sucks" if you misuse it, i.e., apply explicit formatting
instead of styles.
> How about...using paragraphs, lists, blockquotes, etc? They are directly
> defined in HTML for your convenience.
Heh... so are tables and frames, to fix the rendering problems with
plain old paragraphs, etc.
I suppose I could reduce my screen resolution to 640x480, but I'll pass,
thanks. (hugs his Xinerama setup at 2880x1024...)
> You got a readable layout yes, but what happens when you add to it?
I'll let emacs' M-x auto-fill-mode fix the word wrap, and with the pre
tags, I'll be done in under 2 minutes.
> Oh, and trying to control how it renders is pointless as you have
> realized, so why bother trying to in the first place?
I thought gopher lost out to HTML+HTTP?
> And what is
> readable for you, may not be for everyone else, especially if they use
> some tool to automatically convert your page into another format (think
> text-to-speech). In these cases, a logical use of markup will probably
> be much better.
What on that page could possibly be improved for text-to-speech? Or a
>> And it's viewable in lynx, too! Heck, it almost looks the same in
>> lynx as Mozilla!
> Do you think you can try the many different web browsers to check how it
If a browser can't render <pre> text, I neither care nor want to hear