In article <3d74b4da@news.povray.org> , Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg>  wrote:

>> You quoted me out of context (again).
>
>   No, I didn't. Saying that is another of your cheap tactics.

Ha! You provide two great examples of doing this here.

Number one:

>> - The user scren resolution may not be sufficient to clearly see a
>>   difference between bold and normal text
>> - The user might be on a too small screen where 20 pixel height is too much
>
>   The user screen can be so small that he can't properly view an image which
> the author wants to show. What should the author do? Reduce the image size
> to something really small just in case?

I was talking about text, the h1 tag in fact.  You then starts talking about
images making it look like I talked about images.

Number two:

>> Yes, that is indeed your intention.  The problem is that you fail to help
>> because of the way HTML is meant to be (not depend on a specific layout),
>> but once you have a specific layout you also make assumptions based on the
>> layout you set.
>
>   That makes no sense at all.
>   Firstly, "you fail to help" means that no-one, absolutely no-one gets any
> advantage of the layout I used. Reading people's comments about the new
> layout ("much better than the old one") clearly disproves this.
>   Secondly, the reason you give for this just doesn't make sense: "Because
> of the way HTML is meant to be"? What that does mean? How is that relevant
> to the fact that people like the current layout more than the old one?

Well, why do you startspicking on individual sentences?  You rip the
"because of the way HTML is meant to be" out of the context of the
immediately following "(not depend on a specific layout)".  With this little
not in parenthesis it makes sense if you would just bother to read it.

But you did not read any of my arguments, you did not look up any of the
examples I have about layout (or as said before call them presentation if
you like) tags in the HTML 4.0 specification versus text structure tags in
the very same specification.

If you find the same distinction in the specification of HTML and we are
talking about HTML, why do you keep attacking the definition this is all
about?

The only conclusions from the above are that you either do not understand
the definitions in the HTMl sepcification or you do not want to understand
them for the sake of argument.

In either case, whatever I say cannot convince you if we do not share the
same vocabulary and definition.  So if you are unable or refuse to
understand, not what i wrote, but what is written in the HTML 4.0
specification, then I cannot continue arguing with you because i simply
cannot take you seriously on the basis I presented above.

    Thorsten


PS:

>   And as I said before (and you conveniently skipped): The reader *can't know*
> what is important and what is not. The author does. Thus the author can help
> the reader by giving him this information.

Yes, the reader can.  If you just stick to the structure you find in books
as well.  You have a table of contents and you have sections and subsections
with headers.  More you do not need.


____________________________________________________
Thorsten Froehlich, Duisburg, Germany
e-mail: tho### [at] trfde

Visit POV-Ray on the web: http://mac.povray.org

Post a reply to this message