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

Thorsten Froehlich <tho### [at] trfde> wrote:
> Really, "layout" and "structure" are not the same, not even close.

  Yes, they are close.

  Think about the different "structure" elements in HTML.
  For example <H1> means "header level 1". What does the word "header" mean?
Does it mean that it should be printed with a really small font at the
footer of the page, perhaps? Or does it mean that that it should be printed
in the marginal? No, it means that it is the title of a section and that
it should be printed at the beginning of the section, making clear that
it is the title of the section.
  Printing a <H1> text with a small font in the footer of the page would
make no sense and would certainly contradict the meaning of this element.
Thus you are already implying some layout: It should be printed at the
beginning of the text which follows, and it should be printed so that
it looks like a header text.
  If you specify a <P> tag, you are telling that a new paragraph begins.
This means that plain text follows, but should be clearly separated from the
previous text. It does not mean, for example, that the following text should
be printed as a footnote? No. Thus you are again implying some layout by
telling that it's a paragraph and should be printed like a paragraph.

  The "structuring" elements clearly affect layout. They might not
specify the *exact* layout, but they define the layout more loosely
(eg. a header should not be printed as a footnote, but as a header).

  And in the other way around: Layout elements are structured. Technically
if you break the structure of layout elements (eg. <i><u>...</i></u>) you
are making a semantical error. Layout elements define the beginning and
end of the text to be layouted in the special way, that is, they define
a structural element. Even though they may define more strictly how the
text inside them should be printed, they are still defining a distinct
element in the whole text: The text inside the layout tags is a differentiated
part of the whole text. This is structural.

  Structure and layout are very close to each other.

-- 
#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 <3d7402a4@news.povray.org> , Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg>  wrote:

>   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).

Argh!  here you already show what I hate most about CSS:  It allows you to
make such arbitrary choices.  How many books come in 20+ colors and 20+
fonts?  It is easy to print in many colors and with many fonts today yet it
is not done even in leaflets.

Why?  Because this kind of layout hurts readability more than it helps!

And do works of Shakespeare, Joyce or Orwell require more than a simple
font, maybe a italics version of it and a bit indenting to outline very
complex stories?  Do papers by Einstein or Newton require fancy layout to
express their ideas?

So if some of the most brilliant people did not require advanced layout to
make their ideas known on the planet, why does a little web page need it for
much less important information? -- Because the little content a web page
has is so unimportant compared to their work, it has to be made appear more
than it is!

It is simplicity and in essence modesty what makes good layout.  If web
pages look like advertisements (with fancy layout) - and for some companies
that may be all they want on their web site - it degrades the web to only a
good looking place without content or structure!  Then we could just as well
turn it off!!!  ;-)

    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:3d740221@news.povray.org...
> Well, if you insist that structure and layout are the same for you it is
> pointless to argue with you.

    That's the problem though - structure and layout are essentially the
same concept viewed at differing levels of abstraction.

> You have to be able to comprehend the meaning
> of words and their differences to be able to participate in an argument.
>

    Which is why I asked you to give us _your_ definition of "structure" and
"layout" - you're clearly reading some important difference into the two
that I, at least, don't see.
    Again, would your care to give us _your_ definitions ? And, this time,
don't just post links - give us _your_ definitions.

> I am not going to bother arguing on a level as low as your interpretation
of
> clearly different words.

    They're not so 'clearly different' to me - they're just, as I've said
several times now, different _abstractions_ of _the same concept_.

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

Post a reply to this message

In article <3d7407e3@news.povray.org> , Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg>  wrote:

>> Really, "layout" and "structure" are not the same, not even close.
>
>   Yes, they are close.

Well, if you think so I cannot help you.  Go an learn more about the two and
hopefully you will see the differences more clearly.

>   Think about the different "structure" elements in HTML.
>   For example <H1> means "header level 1". What does the word "header" mean?
> Does it mean that it should be printed with a really small font at the
> footer of the page, perhaps?

It could mean anything.  When you print a HTML pahe on paper, a new page
could for example start with every h1 tag.

But ask yourself what does it mean if someone reads it to you (ignore the
visual element)?  The a header is nothing more than a pause between to
longer sections of text being read to you.  Does it mean it has to appear in
"Helvetica bold 20 pixel height"?  No, it eams "this is a new section and
here is an outline what will follow in a few words".  What is the more
important part?  the fact that the text is "Helvetica bold 20 pixel height",
or what it says?  The answer is clear, I hope...

>   The "structuring" elements clearly affect layout. They might not
> specify the *exact* layout, but they define the layout more loosely
> (eg. a header should not be printed as a footnote, but as a header).

Well, why do you want to disallow users to configure their display such that
<h1> is rendered in a three pixel size font?  Is it _your_ responsibility to
prevent users from hurting themselves if they want to?

    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 <3d74082e@news.povray.org> , "Pandora" 
<pan### [at] pandora-softwarecom> wrote:

>     Which is why I asked you to give us _your_ definition of "structure" and
> "layout" - you're clearly reading some important difference into the two
> that I, at least, don't see.
>     Again, would your care to give us _your_ definitions ? And, this time,
> don't just post links - give us _your_ definitions.

I already did.  Twice!

By example:

Date: Tue, 03 Sep 2002 02:11:35 +0200
From: "Thorsten Froehlich" <tho### [at] trfde>
Newsgroups: povray.general
Subject: Re: povQ&T (aka. povVFAQ) new look
Message-ID: <3d73fe38@news.povray.org>
Xref: news.povray.org povray.general:41839

By references:

Date: Tue, 03 Sep 2002 01:13:35 +0200
From: "Thorsten Froehlich" <tho### [at] trfde>
Newsgroups: povray.general
Subject: Re: povQ&T (aka. povVFAQ) new look
Message-ID: <3d73f0a0@news.povray.org>
Xref: news.povray.org povray.general:41823

That should really be enough.


____________________________________________________
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 wrote:
> 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
                ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
This is what I was referring to when I pointed out that sun's site does have
a stylesheet. That's all I meant.

>>>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.

Sigh. Did I personally attack you Thorsten? I was only trying to clarify
a point about sun's site. Your statement about it working perfectly without
stylesheets sounded like it didn't have them at all. If you re-read your
post, you can see it can be taken in several ways.

Stylesheets are just a tool of the web site designer. How it's used can
lead to sites that are easier for visitors to navigate and read the
content. Or it can lead to really obnoxious sites. It all depends on the
web designer. Perhaps your beef should be with bad design rather than the
tools themselves. I think a lot of web designers feel like their sites
are leaning more towards artistic presentation rather than plain vanilla
book-like text only. It really depends on what the site is all about.

-Roz

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:
> 
> 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... :) ).

With regard to the VFAQ page the content is not, strictly speaking, entirely
all yours. Many of us have contributed to the content of the page. Along
with those contributions it was always presumed that the content would be
displayed in such a manner that every POV-Ray user could benefit from that
content without the handicap of browser dependent authoring restrictions.
I appreciate you making the compromise you did for the sake of the VFAQ and
welcome you to present the rest of your site however you wish.

When I make criticisms about peoples design decisions on POV-Ray websites I
only do so because I care about the POV-Ray community and their accessibility
to resources and information that can help them in their quest to become
better users of the program. If you think I put in all the time and effort
on my links collection for my own sake you are mistaken. I could easily pare
it down to a hundred or so sites I might frequent and dump the rest. I put
in that time and effort for the sake of the POV-Ray community and will continue
doing so for as long as I can. If I were to compromise that effort by putting
all of the links in a browser dependent CSS script then I wouldn't be doing my
job and at least part of the community would suffer as a result. That would
be unconscionable to me. That is pretty much the point that Thorsten and I
have been arguing from the beginning but people in this tread have been unable
to see. In 5 years or so when everyone has had a chance to upgrade to comparable
software then these problems will likely go away. In the mean time it is
important to recognize them and if at all possible make allowances for these
differences.

-- 
Ken Tyler

Post a reply to this message

Thorsten Froehlich wrote:
> 
> 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...

Thank you for forfeiting the argument. I must ask you, as a matter of 
protocol, that you cease to post in this thread, since you are clearly 
wrong and have nothing more to contribute. Continuing to argue a point 
you have lost would only make you a troll.

-Xplo

Post a reply to this message