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

> 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).

Oh, I completely agree.  the usuability of currentb browsers is so bad that
users cannot easily change it.  However, as you pointed out, if it is
missing, browsers can just be updated with the ability to change this, but
contraty to enforcing stylesheets the difference would be that the content
will still display on all current browsers, just that users do not ahve any
more control than they have now.


In article <3d73f42c@news.povray.org> , Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg>  wrote:

>   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?

Yes, the original HTML specification contained some layout tags.  If you are
able to find a copy of the 1995 edition (there is 2nd edition out now) of
"HTML for Fun and Profit".  The ISBN for the first edition is 0-13-359290-1.

In section 2.4 it explains the difference between what the author calls
"logical" and "physical" formatting.  The tags b,i,strike,tt are listed a
"physical" and the tags cite, code, dfn, em, kbd, key, samp, strong and var
are defined as "logical".

You also find a clear separation of the tags in section 9.2.1 and 15.2.1 in
the HTML 4.0 specification.  The ones referred to as "logical" formatting
above are in the section 9.2.1 "Structured text", while the ones listed as
having "physical" formatting are listed in section 15.2.1 "Font style
elements [...]"

>   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?

Well, for the author of the book there is no way to not make that decision.
There is no alternative possible.  For the web there is this choice.  So why
should the author enforce more on the read than absolutely necessary if
he/she does not have to?

And keep in mind that many of the layout decisions in a book are not
actually made by the author but my the publisher.  the publisher will
usually determine the size of the book (its width and height), which in turn
defines the number of pages implicitly, just as one example.

On the web on the other hand the user defines the width and height of the
page because it is possible to delegate this choice to the user.  And it is
just possible to delegate the other choices possibel to the user.

    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

"Xplo Eristotle" <xpl### [at] infomagicnet> wrote in message
news:3d73fb58@news.povray.org...
> 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.
>


    You tell him!

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

Post a reply to this message

Thorsten Froehlich wrote:
> They allow designers to destroy web pages with tons of bandwidth wasting
> clutter.  Try the current www.sun.com for example.  It is much better than
> the old one and works perfectly without stylesheets.  The only thing that
> looks not so nice is the graphics some stupid designer added assuming
> stylesheets are available everywhere.  So it is very possible to design a
> page that looks good without stylesheets, one just has to remove access to
> it from stupid designers who have no clue about information presentation.

I just visited www.sun.com and looked at the source code. They are using
a stylesheet, it's just an embedded one.

-Roz

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:
> Thorsten Froehlich <tho### [at] trfde> wrote:
> 
>>I said now a few hundred times that I do 
>>not want *************any************** layout.
> 
> 
>   Ok, I made a version of one of the pages with absolutely no layout:
> 
> http://www.students.tut.fi/~warp/povQandT/languageQandT_nolayout.html
> 
>   Now I see what you mean. It's a lot cleaner this way! A lot nicer to read.
>   Perhaps I should make all the pages like that.
> 

ROFL!

Post a reply to this message

In article <3d73f4a4@news.povray.org> , "Pandora" 
<pan### [at] pandora-softwarecom> wrote:

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

Take this scene for example:

sphere
{
    0, 1
}

box
{
    3, 4
}

Now lets change its layout:

sphere { 0, 1 }

box { 3, 4 }

Or lets change the layout like this:

sphere {
 0, 1
}

box {
 3, 4
}

Changing the structure on the other hand (also in POV-Ray it does not matter
in this particular example, but imagine it in a CSG difference for example)
would be:

box
{
    3, 4
}

sphere
{
    0, 1
}


I assume you agree that the formatting, which is a form of layout (the
layout would include more, such as the font being used) is a matter or
personal preference.  My point is that in HTML documents I would like to
have the same choice of as I have in POV-Ray when I am writing a scene and
determine how its layout will be most readable for me.

NOTE: I am up only for the layout of the scene description language, the
scene that will be render in the example is meaningless and not point of my
argument.  So in that sense my example is not the ideal, i have to admit...

    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

In article <3d73fb53$1@news.povray.org> , "Pandora" 
<pan### [at] pandora-softwarecom> wrote:

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

No offense, just making sure!

>     What's your native language ? Thorsten Froehlich doesn't sound like an
> English name to me

See my signature.

> - 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.

Oh, I did.

I even got out my Latin dictionary to check for the meaning of the
"structura".  The common root of the word "structure" in English and the
word "Struktur" in German.

And "layout" made its what into the German language through printing, so
there is the word "Layout" take from English...

    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

In article <3d73fb58@news.povray.org> , Xplo Eristotle <xpl### [at] infomagicnet>
wrote:

> 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.

No, you have to read the whole long paragraph in the HTML 4.0 specification
that sits before the little passage that I quoted.

> 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.

Well, if you insist that structure and layout are the same for you it is
pointless to argue with you.  You have to be able to comprehend the meaning
of words and their differences to be able to participate in an argument.

I am not going to bother arguing on a level as low as your interpretation of
clearly different words.  If you prefer arguing over the obvious, go to
kindergarten, it is the right place to do so.

As far as I am concerned, killfiles are useful...

    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:
> Well, for the author of the book there is no way to not make that decision.
> There is no alternative possible.  For the web there is this choice.  So why
> should the author enforce more on the read than absolutely necessary if
> he/she does not have to?

  It's not about enforcing, it's about helping. That's the whole point.

  The author can feel that his text is more readable and easier to understand
if he, for example, makes some things look more prominent than others (eg.
by defining a special font and/or color).
  For example, it could be easier to find pieces of example code in a longer
page if these parts can be seen with a quick look (eg. because they are
colored in some way or there's another easy-to-see layout which makes them
prominent). If the text uses special keywords, a special formatting for
them helps the reader to distinguish them from regular text (the author
could even have an introductory page explaining what do the different
fonts/colors mean).
  Thus all these things can be used by the author to help the viewer to
read his work better and easier. (Yes, of course these things can be
misused, but what couldn't? You could perfectly misuse the <h1> tag and
put the whole content of the page inside it. However, the point is not
how these features can be misused, but how they can be used to help the
author and the reader. The fact that something *can* be used in the
wrong way doesn't mean it can't be used in the right way.)

  What you basically want is to take these tools away from the author.
You don't want to give the author any way of defining things in his own
way in order to help the reader.
  I don't agree with this.
  What you are proposing is that the responsibility of deciding what is
important and what is not, and how important things should be viewed, is
transferred from the author to the reader. However, there's a big problem
here: The author knows what is important in his own work, but the reader
doesn't. The author knows that some specific thing should be emphasized
so that it can be seen more easily and make the text easier to read, but
the reader can't know this beforehand.

  Moreover, the text could have different types of things, which should be
distinguished from each other (by the reader). For example in HTML we
have the <code> block, but only one; what if we want different types
of <code> blocks which are clearly differentiated from each other?
Even if the reader would know this and would want to make the difference
apparent, he couldn't do it! However, the author can.
  As I said before, the author can help the reader to understand his text
more easily. Taking away the tools to achieve this is not a good thing
in my opinion.

-- 
#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

In article <3D7### [at] netscapenet> , Roz <Rzl### [at] netscapenet>  
wrote:

>> They allow designers to destroy web pages with tons of bandwidth wasting
>> clutter.  Try the current www.sun.com for example.  It is much better than
>> the old one and works perfectly without stylesheets.  The only thing that
>> looks not so nice is the graphics some stupid designer added assuming
>> stylesheets are available everywhere.  So it is very possible to design a
>> page that looks good without stylesheets, one just has to remove access to
>> it from stupid designers who have no clue about information presentation.
>
> I just visited www.sun.com and looked at the source code. They are using
> a stylesheet, it's just an embedded one.

I did not say they don't:  "The only thing that looks not so nice is the
graphics some stupid designer added assuming stylesheets are available
everywhere."

If you cannot read you need help.  Please get 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

Xplo Eristotle <xpl### [at] infomagicnet> wrote:
> As the content creator, it is MY right to decide how my content is to be 
> presented.

  I agree with this (even though I perhaps would have worder the rest of
the paragraph more nicely... :) ).

-- 
#macro M(A,N,D,L)plane{-z,-9pigment{mandel L*9translate N color_map{[0rgb x]
[1rgb 9]}scale<D,D*3D>*1e3}rotate y*A*8}#end M(-3<1.206434.28623>70,7)M(
-1<.7438.1795>1,20)M(1<.77595.13699>30,20)M(3<.75923.07145>80,99)// - Warp -

Post a reply to this message