In article <3d741689@news.povray.org> , "Pandora" 
<pan### [at] pandora-softwarecom> wrote:

>     It all comes down to where you personally feel "Layout" fits into this
> picture. As I said above, Warp and I see the structural elements of "Layout"
> as being the more important, whereas, I think, you see the "Style" elements
> of "Layout" as being more important, yes ?

Well, what you defined as "style" I indeed see as a part of "layout". Yet
"alyout" is a bit more.  Like spaces betwene paragraphs and such.  Let me
roughly define "layout" as "style" and "format" in the sense as these two
words are used i.e. in word processing applications.  However, this is not
exact enough (see below).

> "Layout" as being more akin with "Style", whereas myself and Warp see
> "Layout" as being more akin with "Structure" - with the "Style" part of
> "Layout" being optional.

Yes, whereas I follow the authors of the HTML specification in the
separation of "structure" and what they call "presentation" in some
locations.  Or back to simplicity of the definition:  Everything that you
can put in a CSS file I consider "layout", and everything that you put into
an HTML file **minus** the things that are already have in the CSS file are
"structure".

    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

On 29 Aug 2002 14:07:27 -0400, Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote:
> Any opinions?

My opinion is that this whole thread sounds interesting but sad for community.
Personally I don't like when people not agree so much becouse it can influence
cooperation :-(

ABX

Post a reply to this message

"Thorsten Froehlich" <tho### [at] trfde> wrote in message
news:3d73e4c8@news.povray.org...

<snip>

Thorsten, I'm confused by your attitude towards CSS.

Used well, CSS moves all style and design decisions into the CSS, leaving the
HTML content of the page much "purer" than it would have been without CSS (by
which I mean web-designers would have been forced to implement style via HTML
kludges).

Used well, it should be possible for any user to view a CSS based website,
irrespective of whether their browser supports CSS or not (since, without CSS
support, the website should be perfectly structured HTML).

The only bad bit of CSS is when it is used to modify the flow of the document,
since at that point the site will break when viewed through a non-CSS supporting
browser*.

CSS reduces clutter, bandwidth and restores to HTML its primary role.

* BTW MS were particularily guilty of this sin in some of the tutorials on CSS
that were offered on their site - I assume that these have now been removed,
'cos they were bloody awful.

Post a reply to this message

ABX wrote:

> My opinion is that this whole thread sounds interesting but sad for
> community. Personally I don't like when people not agree so much because
> it can influence cooperation :-(

  In fact, it served me a lot! I'm just doing a "total remake" of my site, 
and now I'm convinced that I've laid out the structure of my content much 
better than with the current one.  :)

-- 
Jaime Vives Piqueres

La Persistencia de la Ignorancia
http://www.ignorancia.org

Post a reply to this message

Thorsten Froehlich <tho### [at] trfde> wrote:
> Well, count the number of colors on your page.  There are really a lot.  If
> you count on your page, there are alreday at least ten:

> Every "button" consists of three, the background colors (two), the text
> color, the link color, the followed link color, the section headers, the
> separator color.

  I wasn't talking about my page. I was talking about "the author using a
color to differentiate a keyword from the rest of the text".

  Besides, you count wrongly. The background image has at least a hundred
colors.
  You clearly counted the bacground as having one color shade, from orange
to white, and thus you counted it as two colors only. Isn't it, thus, a bit
unfair that you count three colors for the "buttons", even though they also
use just shades of the same color?
  Now you are complaining also about the link colors. Links are also
underlined, which is also layout. Should I make them black and with no
underline in order to avoid any layout?
  What is the "separator"? <hr>? As far as I can see, it's black, as the
plain text.

  You can't seriously claim that the colors I used make the text more unclear.

> Yes, mathemetical forumals use the same layout everywhere to convey their
> structure.  They are a perfect example of structure turned into a specific
> mostly universal layout everybody agrees upon.  They are a perfect example
> how good layout should be:  To help follow the structure.

  First you claim that they did not use layout. Now you agree that they did.

> Exactly!  Or imaggine anybody changing the layout of formulas.  You get a
> mess.  Here we have the case where an almost perfect layout has been
> developed by many people over centuries.  That is very different from
> someone stitting down and saying: "Now I am going to invent the perfect
> layout for my users".

  I'm still ready for the test: I can make a version of the Q&T pages with
no layout, and we can make a poll about which one people prefer.
  What you claim is best for people and what people actually like are two
completely different things.

  I still claim that the Q&T pages using the browser's default layout would be
uglier, harder to read and harder to understand, no matter how much you
claim the contrary.

> No, not remove.  You already mentioned how to do it correctly:  if you want
> to emphazise something, use the em tag, if you want to make something stand
> out, use the strong tag.  This way you separate layout from structure.

  I don't see the point. No-one, absolutely no-one, has a different setting
for those things than the browser default. I would bet that you neither.

>>   But this would demonstrate one point: According to you it's best for
>> the readers to have the pages with no layout definitions. The votes would
>> certainly prove the contrary.

> No, you are still confusing layout and structure here.

  Uh? Where?
  I just said, that I can make a version of the pages with no layout
definitions. Where am I confusing what?

>>   (Well, let me guess: Most of the people are stupid, and only a very few
>> enlightened people know what is the best thing to have... ;) )

> No, but as you clearly show, most people did not even read the manual (HTML
> 4.0 specification, for example), but start doing web design.  If you make
> mistakes using something because you did not read the manual, it is indeed
> so that those who did read the manual will know more than those who did not.

  You are now making a cheap attack (and you know it).
  I was talking about which one people would prefer: The version of the pages
with the current layout settings, or the version of the pages with the
browser's default layout settings.
  Your answer has absolutely no relation to this, but is a cheap attack.

-- 
#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:
> You quoted me out of context (again).

  No, I didn't. Saying that is another of your cheap tactics.
  You give the answer yourself:

> It is very clear what i mean with "anything" is layout.

  And that's the thing to which I answered "no".
  I said that if you specify <H1>, you are telling that it's a level 1 header
and thus should be layouted as such. It should not be layouted as a footnote
or a marginal note, but as a header. If the page viewer layouts it as a
footnote, it's clearly breaking the meaning of the tag. Thus you are
influencing the layout by saying that it's a header.

>>   This is a minor difference. Regardless of whether it starts in a new
>> page or not, it should still be a *header*, not something else (eg.
>> a footnote). You are affecting the layout by specifying that it's a header.
>> If you had used another tag (eg. <p>), the layout would be completely
>> different, and the meaning of the text inside the tags would be different.

> That is exactly what I am saying!

  You are changing your mind constantly. You could decide whether or not
a specific structure tag affects the layout. Sometimes you say no ("it
could be anything"), sometimes you say yes ("that's exactly what I am
saying").

>  The structure tag h1 can be rendered in
> many different layouts.

  Yes, but not at will. If it's a header, it should look like a header. It
should not look like something else (eg. a footnote). That's the point.
  What you are telling with <H1> is "the page should be layouted so that
this thing looks like a header of level 1". Thus you are affecting the
layout of the page.

>  But you want control over the layout and thus you
> imply you want tonctrol over where to put it.  I am arguing for the reader
> to decide which layout he/she prefers.  Not more, not less.

  Now you are claiming something I have never said.
  Yes, it's a good thing that the author of a page can give the reader a
layout which the author feels that helps the reader. I'm not saying that
the reader should be *forced* to use that layout.
  And how could the reader decide which layout he prefers when there are
no options? Browsers have one single layout by default, and even if it is
possible to change it, no-one does.

  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.

> - The user does not have the font Helvetica

  Then the browser uses a default. So what?
  CSS is not "use this or don't show the page at all". It's "use this if
you can".

> - 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?
  Besides, most browsers have a zooming option. Once again: It's not about
forcing.

> 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 ona s 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?

> On the other hand, had your layout not depended on
> the specificc layout elements you have and instead focused on structure
> along, this problem would not exist.

  And then almost a 100% of people out there would suffer from the default
layout of the pages, which makes the content harder to read and understand?
And don't come up again with the crap that users "decide which layout they
want", because they don't.
  You want me to drop out layout because two people in the world *might* be
reading the pages in a screen with a really really small resolution? Besides
that being extremely unlikely, it's not practical to take away the layout
from thousands of people just because two of them might want something
different.

  Besides, taking away the layout information wouldn't have helped to this
matter. The browser does not break the lines in <pre>-blocks because of
its very definition. With a really small resolution you get a horzontal
scrollbar because the text in the <pre> doesn't fit.
  Ah, but <pre> is a layouting tag... Oops. I should remove that too. Well,
goodbye indentation and fixed-width font then... The code would look really
great that way.

> As you see in the example I gave, you made an assumption.  You always have
> to make an assumption when you specify layout.

  So what? Who cares?
  In some cases assumptions can be made (such as with <pre> blocks described
above).

>  But why should you make an
> assumption if the user reading it _knows_ the layout he/she needs?

  This is simply not true. User's can't know how a page should be layouted
because they can't know what is important and what is not

-- 
#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

Do you think it would be possible for you guys to take this discussion to p.o.t.?
There seems to be little, if any, POV-specific content to the posts.

Post a reply to this message

"Thorsten Froehlich" <tho### [at] trfde> wrote in message
news:3d73e4c8@news.povray.org...
> In article <3d73d046@news.povray.org> , Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg>  wrote:
>
> >   You do realize that tags like <H1>, <P>, <HR>, <I> etc are layout
formatting
> > tags?
> >   No layout means that the whole page would be one contiguous line of text.
>
> No, you are wrong.  See my other post.  They are not "layout", they are
> "structure".  I had assumed you know at least the basic terminology, but
> people not reading the manual seems to be a problem outside POV-Ray.  So I
> would recommend to RTFM now, the continue arguing ;-)
>

From a practical and logical point of view, IMHO Thorsten is right (although I
think his general stance is irrational ;).

There is no fixed rule about how H1, P, etc. should be displayed - H1 means top
level header, but it says nothing about how that header should be formatted.

Even table tags don't directly specify a width/height/border style/etc - it
might be fairer to think of them as switching from a word document to an excel
document, rather than as an implementation of a particular style or format. I
suppose one of the few gray areas is table borders - they look like a design
issue, but in terms of defining content, the presence or absence of a border can
make quite a difference (given that tabs and such like don't really exist in
HTML, using a borderless table for alignment is pretty much the only option,
even when, in reality, the info is not table-related).

Even tags such as <em> and <strong> only indicate that something should be
emphasised or should be strong (never really understood the distinction, but
whatthehell) - the fact that most browsers will use italics and bold
respectively is an implementation of the browser, not the tag.

The bottom line is that CSS moves design out of html where it never belonged.
Since embedding design-decisions in html seems to be what Thorsten doesn't like
(a perfectly legit. viewpoint), I'm mystified by his antipathy.

Post a reply to this message

Ok, I'm pulling out of this discussion, for two reasons :

    1. The majority of the issue seems to be one of semantics and arguing
over semantics quickly gets tired and tedious. It's a fact of life that two
different people will often, particularly when they're in different
countries and have different native languages, see the exact same word as
having two related, but crucially different, meanings.

    2. Thorsten keeps on DeWitting[1] the argument.

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

[1] Selectively ignoring important points that, one can only assume, he has
no argument against because he can see that those are the points at which
his argument falls down.

Post a reply to this message

Tom Melly <tom### [at] tomandlucouk> wrote:
> The bottom line is that CSS moves design out of html where it never belonged.

  I agree with you that this is exactly the reason why he should like CSS
instead of hating it. CSS is a step towards eliminating style definitions
from the HTML file. It's going towards the original purpose of HTML, as he
defined it.

-- 
#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