Thorsten Froehlich <tho### [at] trfde> wrote:
> The user has selected how he wants his layout.

  By the way, that's one thing where you are wrong.
  Almost 100% of users do not select nor configure any layout-related things
in their browser, usually because they don't know how to do it even if they
wanted to do so (which they don't, almost without exception).
  If the page has nothing of what you define as layout, the user will simply
view it with the browser default interpretation. That's not a user-made
decision, it's what the browser offers him, whether or not the user would
want to see it in another way. Even if some browser allow the user to
modify the default layout, most of the users (almost 100% of them) simply
don't bother.
  Since most browsers have almost the same defaults for pages not containing
what you consider layout, it's not in fact a user-decision to view the page
as it is shown, but it's actually a decision of the maker of the page.

  So "the user has selected" is simply not true. The maker of the page
made the selection in behalf of the user (in almost 100% of the cases).

> See, you do not know the terms.  i replied to Warp about this including a
> refernce explaining it.  It is "structure".

  If I say something like <p class=indented>, that's structure as well,
according to your definition. It's a new structure element, and how it
should be interpreted is specified in the CSS file. You can specify that
this new structure element should work like the regular <p>, but the text
should be indented for example by 4 characters.

  The default set of "structure" elements in HTML are not always enough
for everything you would want to do. The great thing about CSS is that
you can define new structure elements and how they should be interpreted
by the browser.

  Now, you are probably against this as well (just by principle if nothing
else). However, it wouldn't make too much sense. If HTML would have
an "indented paragraph" element by default, you wouldn't complain about it.
However, now that we have a way to create this kind of element, you complain
about it.
  IMHO it's a great thing that instead of cluttering the HTML spec with
more and more new element tags, they made a way for the user to create new
element tags. I still can't see why this is a bad thing.

-- 
#macro N(D)#if(D>99)cylinder{M()#local D=div(D,104);M().5,2pigment{rgb M()}}
N(D)#end#end#macro M()<mod(D,13)-6mod(div(D,13)8)-3,10>#end blob{
N(11117333955)N(4254934330)N(3900569407)N(7382340)N(3358)N(970)}//  - Warp -

Post a reply to this message

"Thorsten Froehlich" <tho### [at] trfde> wrote in message
news:3d73ec38@news.povray.org...
> In article <3d73e88c@news.povray.org> , "Pandora"
> <pan### [at] pandora-softwarecom> wrote:
>
> > Sorry to blow your arguments about HTML = content over structure out of
the
> > water, Thorsten, but :
> >
> > "HTML has its roots in SGML which has always been a language for the
> > specification of structural markup." - W3C HTML 4.01 Specification,
section
> > 2.4.1.
>
> But in what way does it "blow [my] arguments"?  That is exactly what I am
> saying!  I never said  "content over structure", I say and said "content
> over layout".  And "layout" != "structure" as I explained a million times
by
> now.  So thanks for the quote, it is much better than the one I found and
> straight to the point!
>


    In my book, and it seems Warps book and Tims book also,
structure=layout=structure.

    Dictionary.com seem to agree with us too :


      n.
        1.. The act or an instance of laying out.
        2.. An arrangement or a plan, especially the schematic arrangement
of parts or areas
      (http://www.dictionary.com/search?q=layout)



n.
  1.. Something made up of a number of parts that are held or put together
in a particular way
  2.. The way in which parts are arranged or put together to form a whole;
makeup
  3.. The interrelation or arrangement of parts in a complex entity
(http://www.dictionary.com/search?q=structure)

They look pretty similar to me - they both talk about an arrangement of
parts to make up a whole...

I'd post excerpts from thesaurus.com too, but all I'm getting, atm, is "The
server encountered an unexpected condition which prevented it from
fulfilling the request." :(

--
Pandora/Scott Hill/[::O:M:C::]Scorpion
Software Engineer.
http://www.pandora-software.com

Post a reply to this message

Attachments:
Download 'amacr.gif' (1 KB) Download 'prime.gif' (1 KB) Download 'lprime.gif' (1 KB) Download 'ubreve.gif' (1 KB) Download 'schwa.gif' (1 KB)

Preview of image 'amacr.gif'

Preview of image 'prime.gif'

Preview of image 'lprime.gif'

Preview of image 'ubreve.gif'

Preview of image 'schwa.gif'

"Thorsten Froehlich" <tho### [at] trfde> wrote in message
news:3d73ed6d@news.povray.org...
> In article <3d73eadf@news.povray.org> , "Pandora"
> <pan### [at] pandora-softwarecom> wrote:
>
> >     Enlighten us Thorston, what are *your* definitions of "layout",
> > "structure" and "content" ?
>
> Try the one you can find everywhere else?  I gave references already, and
> you found another one.
>


    See my reply to your reply to that quote post of mine...

--
Pandora/Scott Hill/[::O:M:C::]Scorpion
Software Engineer.
http://www.pandora-software.com

Post a reply to this message

In article <3d73eadf@news.povray.org> , "Pandora" 
<pan### [at] pandora-softwarecom> wrote:

>     Enlighten us Thorston, what are *your* definitions of "layout",
> "structure" and "content" ?

For your futher reference from a source you seem to believe is always right:

Structure
    <http://www.w3.org/Provider/Style/Structure.html>
    <http://www.w3.org/TR/WAI-WEBCONTENT/#content-structure>

Layout
    <http://www.w3.org/People/howcome/TEB/www/hwl_th_11.html>
    <http://www.w3.org/Printing/fmtext.html#Intro>

Content:
    <http://www.w3.org/TR/WAI-WEBCONTENT/#content-structure>
    <http://www.w3.org/Conferences/WWW4/Panels/coolorcontent.html>


____________________________________________________
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

In article <3d73ee80@news.povray.org> , Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg>  wrote:

>   If I say something like <p class=indented>, that's structure as well,
> according to your definition. It's a new structure element, and how it
> should be interpreted is specified in the CSS file.

No, that is a structure element with attached layout.  You change the
default layout with this, you do not change the default structure.

> You can specify that
> this new structure element should work like the regular <p>, but the text
> should be indented for example by 4 characters.

But you again miss the difference between structre and layout here.  Or
maybe the term used in the CSS specification is less controversial:
"presentation".  If you are more comfortable with this term than with
"layout", please assume that whenever I say "layout", I mean most (but not
all) that is covered by the term "presentation".  However, presentation also
says for example a bit more about text than just its layout, and that is not
what I want to imply.

>   The default set of "structure" elements in HTML are not always enough
> for everything you would want to do.

They are.  Even your example focuses on layout.  You just called it
"structure" but then in the same sentence mention indentation, which - as
you surely agree with me - is layout.

> If HTML would have
> an "indented paragraph" element by default, you wouldn't complain about it.
> However, now that we have a way to create this kind of element, you complain
> about it.

But indentation is _layout_.  How you indent information assumes _you_ have
a certain preference as a designer to convey something with indentation.
But what?  A quote?  Then you could use the blockquote tag, for example.

>   IMHO it's a great thing that instead of cluttering the HTML spec with
> more and more new element tags, they made a way for the user to create new
> element tags. I still can't see why this is a bad thing.

But in HTML you do not create new tags and specify their layout.  You do
that in XML or XHTMl for that matter...

    Thorsten

____________________________________________________
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

Thorsten Froehlich <tho### [at] trfde> wrote:
> No, you made a page without "structure".  I really expected you to know such
> an important difference!  Maybe you should attend a course about the topic
> or get a few good books.  You have a really big hole in your knowledge here!

  Is the <i> tag structure or layout? And <u>? How about the <em> tag?
If some of them are layout definitions and others not, why?

  Where do you draw the line between structure and layout? If you use
an <i>...</i> block, you are defining a special block of text (structure)
which should have a special layout (italic).
  All the layout elements are structure elements. The tags delimit pieces
of text, forming a new structure, which should usually be layouted in a
special way.

  Also there's another thing I don't really understand:

  Why the author of a page should have no right to define how his page
should look like? If you buy a book, you are getting completely and 100%
what the author of the book intended. If the author of the book felt that
some parts of the text should have a specific font in order to differentiate
it better from the rest of the text, he has the right to do that. If he
feels that's how his creation should be viewed and that's the best way of
viewing it, why shouldn't he have the right to do so?
  If the author of a web page feels that some keywords should be colored
differently from the rest of the text so that they can be distinguished
from the rest of the text, why shouldn't he do it?

  According to you he should not do it and thus people will be seeing those
keywords with the same color/font as the rest of the text, thus making it
more illegible than what the author would have wanted.

  Now read the above paragraph carefully once again and please explain me why
the author should not be able to do as he sees best.
  After all, it's his piece of work, and he should have the freedom to
choose how it should be best viewed so that the viewers would get what
the author wanted. If the author feels that he should emphasize some
elements of the text in order for the text to be more legible, that's not
only his right, but it's a good thing that he can do it.

-- 
#macro N(D)#if(D>99)cylinder{M()#local D=div(D,104);M().5,2pigment{rgb M()}}
N(D)#end#end#macro M()<mod(D,13)-6mod(div(D,13)8)-3,10>#end blob{
N(11117333955)N(4254934330)N(3900569407)N(7382340)N(3358)N(970)}//  - Warp -

Post a reply to this message

"Thorsten Froehlich" <tho### [at] trfde> wrote in message
news:3d73f0a0@news.povray.org...
> In article <3d73eadf@news.povray.org> , "Pandora"
> <pan### [at] pandora-softwarecom> wrote:
>
> >     Enlighten us Thorston, what are *your* definitions of "layout",
> > "structure" and "content" ?
>
> For your futher reference from a source you seem to believe is always
right:
>


    Okay, for me the difference between what you seem call "layout" and
"structure" is one of a level of abstraction. You may have a structure tree,
thus :

Contents.
Section 1.
Section 2.
    Subsection 1.
    Subsection 2.
Section 3.

But, if we then take the down a level of abstraction we may get, something
like :

Contents.
    Content line 1.
    Content line 2.
    Content line 3.
Section 1.
    Column 1.
        Paragraph 1.
        Paragraph 2.
        ....
    Column 2.
        Paragraph 1.
        Image 1.
        Paragraph 2.
        Table 1.
        ....
and so on...

    So just where does "structure" stop and "layout" begin ? Are columns
"layout" or "structure" ? What about paragraphs ? or sentences ? What about
tables ?

--
Pandora/Scott Hill/[::O:M:C::]Scorpion
Software Engineer.
http://www.pandora-software.com

Post a reply to this message

In article <3d73ef78@news.povray.org> , "Pandora" 
<pan### [at] pandora-softwarecom> wrote:

>     In my book, and it seems Warps book and Tims book also,
> structure=layout=structure.

No, if you look in a dictionary you should know that a dictionary will list
it as "synonym".  Obviously "structue" is not a synonym for "layout".

> They look pretty similar to me - they both talk about an arrangement of
> parts to make up a whole...

If they look too similar maybe you have problems understanding them.
Whatever your native language, I am sure you have exactly the same works
there too.  I would recommend to look them up in your native dictionary, I
assume it will be easier to understand.

Besides, you "overlooked" the important definition of layout in context:

3. Printing
a. The art or process of arranging printed or graphic matter on a page.
b. The overall design of a page, spread, or book, including elements such
   as page and type size, typeface, and the arrangement of titles and page
   numbers.
c. A page or set of pages marked to indicate this design.


Really, "layout" and "structure" are not the same, not even close.  I hope
the above quote explaining "layout" helps you understand the difference
compared to "structure" as you quoted it.


    Thorsten

____________________________________________________
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

"Thorsten Froehlich" <tho### [at] trfde> wrote in message
news:3d73f71a@news.povray.org...
> In article <3d73ef78@news.povray.org> , "Pandora"
> <pan### [at] pandora-softwarecom> wrote:
>
> >     In my book, and it seems Warps book and Tims book also,
> > structure=layout=structure.
>
> No, if you look in a dictionary you should know that a dictionary will
list
> it as "synonym".  Obviously "structue" is not a synonym for "layout".
>

    That's why I was planning to post excerpts from thesaurus.com!

> > They look pretty similar to me - they both talk about an arrangement of
> > parts to make up a whole...
>
> If they look too similar maybe you have problems understanding them.
> Whatever your native language, I am sure you have exactly the same works
> there too.  I would recommend to look them up in your native dictionary, I
> assume it will be easier to understand.
>

    YOU MIGHT WANT TO CHECK YOUR _FACTS_ BEFORE IMPLYING THAT I DON'T HAVE A
GOOD GRASP OF _MY NATIVE LANGUAGE_ !

    I was born in Wales, have been living in England for all but the first
6mths of my life and English _IS_ my native language. I think I've got a
pretty good grasp of the language over the 30yrs I've been on this planet.

    What's your native language ? Thorsten Froehlich doesn't sound like an
English name to me - and I see you have a german email address, I assume
you're, therefor, German and German is _your_ native language - maybe _you_
should be the one looking words up in _your_ native language.

> Besides, you "overlooked" the important definition of layout in context:
>
> 3. Printing
> a. The art or process of arranging printed or graphic matter on a page.
> b. The overall design of a page, spread, or book, including elements such
>    as page and type size, typeface, and the arrangement of titles and page
>    numbers.
> c. A page or set of pages marked to indicate this design.
>

    This does not invalidate anything I said, I just felt the excerpts I
quoted more clearly showed the similarity between layout and structure.
    How does "The overall design of a... ...book" not include _structure_ ?

>
> Really, "layout" and "structure" are not the same, not even close.  I hope
> the above quote explaining "layout" helps you understand the difference
> compared to "structure" as you quoted it.
>

    Yes they are - they're merely differing degrees of the same concept.

--
Pandora/Scott Hill/[::O:M:C::]Scorpion
Software Engineer.
http://www.pandora-software.com

Post a reply to this message

Thorsten Froehlich wrote:
> 
> 11.1 "To minimize these problems, authors should use style sheets to control
> layout rather than tables."

Which strongly implies that use of a table constitutes "layout". 
Therefore, since you claim to be against authors having or exerting any 
control over a document's layout, you must want to rid the world of 
tables as well.

> Structure, structure. Layout! Structure is not layout! Blah blah blah!

Six of one is half a dozen of the other. You haven't got much of an 
argument if it depends on defining one thing as two different things as 
it suits your purpose.

> It would be absolute
> nonsense to prevent users from selecting layout as I detailed before.

I have never argued against that.

> users
> are allowed as much control over layout as they like, but with the broser
> providing defaults.  this is exactly how HTML used to work.

On which planet, Thorsten? Surely you don't mean Earth.

I have used many old browsers (and by old, I mean Mosaic 1-era.. they 
don't get much older than that). None of them gave the user any control 
over layout whatsoever. Most of them didn't give the user the ability to 
choose colors, fonts, font sizes and so forth.

By contrast, however, user stylesheets provide users a means to control 
nearly everything about the appearance of web pages.. far more so than 
any browser's preferences EVER did. And user stylesheets are a part of 
CSS. Is there some reason you can't understand this?

I find something else interesting: in this entire argument, you have 
acted as though you have some kind of inalienable right to see web pages 
however you choose, and that page authors should be required to make 
this as convenient as possible.

I haven't even touched on the opposite argument, which is this:

As the content creator, it is MY right to decide how my content is to be 
presented. If you want to see what I make, then you'll damn well use the 
software you need to do it. And if you're not willing to do that, then 
you can either suffer with poor page rendering, or you can do without my 
pages. Frankly, I think backwards people like you are screwing up the 
web for everyone, and even if I found it convenient to support your 
older software, I would be tempted not to, simply out of principle.

Stick that in your pipe and smoke it.

-Xplo

Post a reply to this message