Thorsten Froehlich wrote:
> 
>>  Firstly, if you don't want to upgrade your browser to a newer version,
>>that's your problem, not mine. If you want to use an old browser, then
>>fine, use it, but don't complain to me because it's not my problem.
> 
> Remind me to vote for  only providing Pentium 4 and PowerPC G4 versions of
> POV-Ray next time.  After all, if you are using old and broken processors
> that lack some important instructions you don't deserve to use POV-Ray!
> 
> Does this mirror help your attitude?

It's a poor analogy, for two reasons.

First, computer hardware is fairly expensive to upgrade. You would be 
asking me to spend hundreds of dollars to run what's supposed to be 
"free" software. In comparison, a browser is much cheaper to upgrade 
(free with a flat-rate net connection, and certainly less expensive than 
a hardware upgrade if you're some unfortunate person who still pays by 
the minute).

Second, there's really no reason why there shouldn't be versions of 
POV-Ray for earlier hardware, as that hardware supports POV-Ray. There's 
no feature in POV-Ray which requires a G4 or P4. Browsers are not the 
same, as older ones don't support features present in the current 
version of the web, and therefore there's a legitimate reason to upgrade 
them to use the web.

I'd like to note one other thing in passing: that this whole argument 
seems to be centered around the need for web interoperability, but the 
entire point of having web standards (or "recommendations" if you must) 
is to provide for that. However, they can't do so if people persist in 
using browsers that don't comply with the standards.. so by refusing to 
upgrade and forcing web authors to cater to you or else, you are 
actually HURTING the cause you claim to support.

-Xplo

Post a reply to this message

In article <3d730406@news.povray.org> , Xplo Eristotle <xpl### [at] infomagicnet>
wrote:

> is to provide for that. However, they can't do so if people persist in
> using browsers that don't comply with the standards.. so by refusing to
> upgrade and forcing web authors to cater to you or else, you are
> actually HURTING the cause you claim to support.

I do not support the W3C.  I do not support industry self-interest groups.

    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:
> I do not support the W3C.  I do not support industry self-interest groups.

  It seems to be more a question of principle than logic. I still don't
recall you explaining what is so bad about CSS. I can't see what is so bad
about it; it makes maintaining big sets of HTML documents easier and helps
separating content from layout, which is a good thing. It also makes it easy
to make available several alternative layouts for the same content.

-- 
#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 <3d7349c6@news.povray.org> , Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg>  wrote:

>   It seems to be more a question of principle than logic. I still don't
> recall you explaining what is so bad about CSS. I can't see what is so bad
> about it; it makes maintaining big sets of HTML documents easier and helps
> separating content from layout, which is a good thing. It also makes it easy
> to make available several alternative layouts for the same content.

I am against the layout being provided by the site.  I want full control
over the layout like I had in HTML originally.  No visual clutter, just
plain information (be it text or pictures) quick and easy to access.  Just
like in paper books rather than commercial advertisements leaflets.

In essence, what does the added layout provide me with that I don't already
have? -- Nothing but problems that I then have to waste my time solving!

On the other hand, has the added layout feature solved any of the
shortcoming of the original HTML like the inability to display formulas
well? -- No, and it still does not.  And why?  Because nobody supports those
"recommendations".

The problem is that rather than focusing on _solutions_, the W3C focuses on
_features_.  This is a typical situation for industry organisations.  They
never did and never will deliver something that is useful, because once it
exists they have nothing new to sell next year (and they don't crea what
they could sell in five years) and thus can't drive their business further.
So there is no reason for them to provide solutions, only features when they
define so-called "standards" or "recommendations" :-(

    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:
> I am against the layout being provided by the site.  I want full control
> over the layout like I had in HTML originally.  No visual clutter, just
> plain information (be it text or pictures) quick and easy to access.  Just
> like in paper books rather than commercial advertisements leaflets.

  Eh, I don't think you have too much control about the layout of a book...

  Besides, in many modern browsers you can turn a default page style (ie no
styles at all). For example if you are using Mozilla, try
View -> Use Style -> Basic Page Style
  That will turn off the CSS providen by the page.

> In essence, what does the added layout provide me with that I don't already
> have? -- Nothing but problems that I then have to waste my time solving!

  IMHO the Q&T pages are a lot nicer to read with their current style than
with the default styles. For example it's a lot easier to see where there are
SDL code segments, and in the text it's easier to see what is a keyword and
what is regular text.

> On the other hand, has the added layout feature solved any of the
> shortcoming of the original HTML like the inability to display formulas
> well? -- No, and it still does not.  And why?  Because nobody supports those
> "recommendations".

  Mozilla supports MathML quite well, so you can't say "nobody".

  And anyways, the correct claim would be "nobody supports those
recommendations *now*". Support for those will certainly be implemented
in browsers in the near future.

> The problem is that rather than focusing on _solutions_, the W3C focuses on
> _features_.

  How can you have a solution without features?

  "Ok, this is a solution to this problem." "How is it used?" "There's no
way of using it because there exists no feature to use it." "Oh..."

  Sorry, but I still fail to see what is so bad and useless about CSS.

-- 
#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 wrote:
> I am against the layout being provided by the site.  I want full control
> over the layout like I had in HTML originally.  No visual clutter, just
> plain information (be it text or pictures) quick and easy to access.  Just
> like in paper books rather than commercial advertisements leaflets.

You're arguing for a return to text-only websites.  That ain't gonna
happen, any more than people will give up P2P clients to the RIAA. If
you're dead set on text, use lynx, and leave people who DO want to have
layout a specific way on their site alone.

-- 
Tim Cook
http://empyrean.scifi-fantasy.com
mirror: http://personal.lig.bellsouth.net/lig/z/9/z993126

-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version: 3.12
GFA dpu- s: a?-- C++(++++) U P? L E--- W++(+++)>$
N++ o? K- w(+) O? M-(--) V? PS+(+++) PE(--) Y(--)
PGP-(--) t* 5++>+++++ X+ R* tv+ b++(+++) DI
D++(---) G(++) e*>++ h+ !r--- !y--
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------

Post a reply to this message

In article <3D7### [at] scifi-fantasycom> , "Timothy R. Cook" 
<tim### [at] scifi-fantasycom> wrote:

> Thorsten Froehlich wrote:
>> I am against the layout being provided by the site.  I want full control
>> over the layout like I had in HTML originally.  No visual clutter, just
>> plain information (be it text or pictures) quick and easy to access.  Just
   ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>> like in paper books rather than commercial advertisements leaflets.
>
> You're arguing for a return to text-only websites.

You did not even read what I wrote.  It is impossible to misunderstand.  You
even quoted what I said yet you claim I said the opposite.  Next time please
read first at least what you quote, and then reply!

    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 wrote:
> 
> I am against the layout being provided by the site.  I want full control
> over the layout like I had in HTML originally.

HTML never gave you full control over the layout. It gave page authors 
control over layout with TABLE and invisible GIFs and things like that. 
And before that, it didn't give anybody control over layout.

> No visual clutter, just
> plain information (be it text or pictures) quick and easy to access.  Just
> like in paper books rather than commercial advertisements leaflets.

Try Lynx.. or set your browser to ignore CSS. (Or even create a user 
stylesheet, use that by default, and see every page with the fonts, 
colors, links styles, and so on that YOU want.. something which HTML 
never provided, incidentally. Sadly, not many browsers support user 
stylesheets yet, even though it's part of the "recommendation".)

> On the other hand, has the added layout feature solved any of the
> shortcoming of the original HTML like the inability to display formulas
> well? -- No, and it still does not.  And why?  Because nobody supports those
> "recommendations".

But the "recommendations" are there, and if someone did support them, 
and if people would upgrade to a browser that supported them - because 
they can't very well expect an unsupported old browser to magically 
learn new tricks - then those shortcomings would be solved.

> The problem is that rather than focusing on _solutions_, the W3C focuses on
> _features_.  This is a typical situation for industry organisations.  They
> never did and never will deliver something that is useful...

Your problem here is that you're naively assuming that you're the 
biggest smarty ever and that everyone should design the web to YOUR 
specifications. If I were you, I would abandon this line of reasoning 
immediately. Some people want fancy colors and fonts and layouts and 
things that blink and flash and jump around.. and almost anyone would 
prefer an attractive (but still simple) page to one that looks like it 
was written in 1992 and uses the functional but extremely boring browser 
defaults.

CSS isn't designed for web users, because they don't use CSS. They use 
web pages. CSS is designed for web authors. It lets us change the look 
of a web page or even an entire site much more easily than we could with 
HTML (and using far less code, which helps those poor dialups users who 
don't want to download a new browser).. and in that sense, it is a 
solution. It makes those pages easier to maintain later, and that's a 
solution. It lets us do things with pages that we couldn't do in HTML.. 
and since people wanted to do them, that is a solution. It lets us adapt 
pages to different browsing environments instead of having to abandon 
style altogether or create several versions of pages, and that is a 
solution. And by forming a standard for page styling that all future 
browsers will hopefully follow, we'll be able to make pages that don't 
look like crap without resorting to the sort of design tricks we had to 
use back during the days of "browser wars" and proprietary 
functionality. And as anyone who was making pages back then knows, THAT 
is most definitely a solution.

It's a hell of a lot better than your solution.

-Xplo

Post a reply to this message

In article <3d73588a@news.povray.org> , Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg>  wrote:

>   Besides, in many modern browsers you can turn a default page style (ie no
> styles at all). For example if you are using Mozilla, try
> View -> Use Style -> Basic Page Style

IE on Mac has had this feature for a very long time now, btw.

>   That will turn off the CSS providen by the page.

Oh yes, to end up with all those sites designed by idiots assuming the
layout they try to force upon me looks exactly like on _their_ browser
everywhere.  Usually the site breaks badly if it does not.  So these options
are absolutely useless.

>   IMHO the Q&T pages are a lot nicer to read with their current style than
> with the default styles.

Well, if your browser ships with a bad default stylesheet that is a problem
of your browser developer...

>   And anyways, the correct claim would be "nobody supports those
> recommendations *now*". Support for those will certainly be implemented
> in browsers in the near future.

Oh sure.  In 20 years it will work then...

Besides, did you notice that Mozialla has to be loaded at startup to appear
it loads quickly?  In reality it is a slow fat memory hog.

On the other hand, plain HTML renders on a 486 without problems (only
decompressing the images will be a bit slower), and browsers won't need half
a gigabyte of memory to run either!

>   How can you have a solution without features?

By making it a native _function_ of the proggram, not something patched on
like a feature ;-)

>   Sorry, but I still fail to see what is so bad and useless about CSS.

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.

And did you notice how quickly the new Sun site loads compared to the old
one?

    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 wrote:
> You did not even read what I wrote.  It is impossible to misunderstand.  You
> even quoted what I said yet you claim I said the opposite.  Next time please
> read first at least what you quote, and then reply!

I did read what you wrote, but understand this: a website with no layout
information has no way of placing images, so the images would be linked
to separately by web designers.  Hence, the webpage itself would be text
only.

-- 
Tim Cook
http://empyrean.scifi-fantasy.com
mirror: http://personal.lig.bellsouth.net/lig/z/9/z993126

-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version: 3.12
GFA dpu- s: a?-- C++(++++) U P? L E--- W++(+++)>$
N++ o? K- w(+) O? M-(--) V? PS+(+++) PE(--) Y(--)
PGP-(--) t* 5++>+++++ X+ R* tv+ b++(+++) DI
D++(---) G(++) e*>++ h+ !r--- !y--
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------

Post a reply to this message