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

Thorsten Froehlich <tho### [at] trfde> wrote:
> Why?  Because this kind of layout hurts readability more than it helps!

  Did you read my text about using and misusing? You are exaggerating, as
people always do in this kind of flamewars: When I say that you could use
a color to distinguish keywords from the rest of the text, you immediately
jump with exaggerations about "20+ colors". That tactic is old and cheap,
and convinces no-one.

  I disagree with you: When used well, fonts and colors are a great aid to
read text (the fact that this can be misused does not invalidate this fact).
  On the contrary: Text with no distinction about different types of
elements can be harder to read and understand (note that I didn't say
"is always"; don't start to exaggerate again, please).

> 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?

  No, because they don't need to. They are stories, not technical specs.
People don't read them to find something specific; they just read the
whole text from beginning to end, and everything is equally important
and thus doesn't need special emphasis.
  (And as you said: They do use layout, such as italics and indenting.)

>  Do papers by Einstein or Newton require fancy layout to
> express their ideas?

  Absolutely yes. Mathematical formulae have a clear layout in order to
be easy to read and understand and to clearly differentiate them from the
rest of the text. The layout of mathematical formulae is very fancy
(because you can't get it with eg. a typewriter).
  When you are looking for a certain formula in they papers, it's easy
because of the layout.

> So if some of the most brilliant people did not require advanced layout to
> make their ideas known on the planet

  But they did. Imagine that the formulae in Einstein's paper would have
been written in ascii in C style...

> 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!

  If layout makes the page more readable and makes finding things easier,
I see no reason to not to use it.
  Again, it's not about being fancy, it's about helping the reader.

  (It seems to me that you think that every time someone defines some
layout property in a web-page, the only and sole purpose for it is to
make the page fancier, not to help the reader to understand the text.
I couldn't disagree more.)

  I am completely read to make a test:
  I can make two versions of the Q&T pages, one as it's currently and
another with no CSS and all of your "layout" tags removed (ie. <i>, <b> etc).
Then we can make a poll about which version do people prefer.

  On the other hand, why bother? Why both know the answer already.
  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.
  (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... ;) )

-- 
#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

Ken wrote:
> 
> 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.

I agree with it being undesirable to have the VFAQ site implement browser
dependent CSS (or anything browser dependent for that matter). That's why I
commented in another thread that the compromise Warp made was a good 
thing, just
as you did in your 1st paragraph above.

However, Thorsten seems to be against CSS, or any layout related 
commands, on
general principle. Even if the layout commands are browser independent, 
he still
doesn't like it. Actually, from his posts in this thread I'd guess he 
hates it
with an extreme passion ;)

> 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.
> 

And in 5 years there'll be a bunch of new ways of presenting web pages 
that'll
cause some more angst ;)

Again, I do agree with you about the allowances... it doesn't do any good to
lock out a bunch of your site visitors. However, if there's tools that make
the site more pleasant for the visitors then I think it's also good to
explore them and try to strike a balance between the web designer's vision
and the current state of the browsers in use.

-Roz

Post a reply to this message

Thorsten Froehlich <tho### [at] trfde> wrote:
>>   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.

  No, it couldn't. It means "header level 1", or "top level header" (ie.
it's not under any other higher-priority header).
  It does not mean "paragraph", nor "footnote", nor "quote". It means "header"
and nothing else.
  The fact that it's a structural element does not mean that it has no
meaning at all: All the contrary, it's this fact that implies that it
has a meaning. If it didn't have any meaning, it wouldn't be a structural
element. Interpreting it as something else than a header would break
the structure.

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

  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.

> 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.

  But this is just a question of what is possible to represent with the
available media. I don't see how it is pertinent to the current issue.
  Besides, in spoken language a pause can be thought as layout. You affected
the layout by making that piece of text a header and not plain text or
a footnote.

>  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...

  And what is so bad if the author would want you to see the header
as "Helvetica bold 20 pixel height"? If the author thinks that that makes
his work look better and nicer, then why not?

> Well, why do you want to disallow users to configure their display such that
> <h1> is rendered in a three pixel size font?

  I don't think CSS disallows users from doing that (at least not any more
than plain HTML does).
  You are still speaking about forcing, while that's not the issue at all.
You can't force anything with CSS. The issue here is helping.

-- 
#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:3d740b71@news.povray.org...
> 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!
>


    Well, I'm after concise definitions, in a single location, of your
definitions so that I can directly answer each point you raise in one go,
rather than having to address each point on a case by case basis.

    Ok, here are my definitions :

    First let me introduce a new term - "Style" :

Style.
    The physical attributes of words, images, tables or other content within
a document. For example, the text color, font or text size used, and so on.

Structure.
    The logical composition of the various elements of content with in a
document. For example, the splitting of a long document in to sections,
pages and so on.

Layout.
    Now, this is where the issue is, I feel. In my mind layout falls
somewhere between Style and Structure. For example, the term "Layout" used
as a heading for this paragraph indicates that this paragraph is a separate
element within this post, labelled "Layout" - from this point of view a
heading is a structural element marking the beginning of a distinct block of
content. However, one could argue that "Layout" also includes "Style", for
example, if this were rich-text, rather than just plain-text I could have
made the word "Layout" bold and underlined - from this point of view a
heading can be seen as a stylistic element.
    I think the whole issue behind this whole argument is that you see
"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.

    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 ?

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

Post a reply to this message

Ken <tyl### [at] pacbellnet> wrote:
> 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 you first reported with the problems viewing the pages with N4,
I was already ready to make the necessary modifications in order to make
the pages work, if you remember, even thought I didn't consider it a too high
priority task, and I didn't want to compromise the layout more than
necessary. At that time, however, I didn't know what was the exact
problem and how it could be solved. I afterwards made some investigation
and found an acceptable solution to the problem (w3.org was a great help
in this).
  However, what triggered the flamewar was that I got some comments which
were more or less of type "your new pages suck!". This made me angry,
which caused lots of heated discussion and opinions, some of them a bit
too exaggerated. After all, I had made quite some efforts to finally
update the look of the Q&T pages so that they would be easier and nicer
for the users to read and browse.
  It was not my intention to start such a flamewar. It's just that when
someone despises something that is important to me and that I have made
with effort, I often lose my temper.

-- 
#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

Warp wrote:
> 
> Ken <tyl### [at] pacbellnet> wrote:
> > 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 you first reported with the problems viewing the pages with N4,

Actually it looked bad in both N4 and IE6. IE6 is supposed to be CSS2
compliant and thus the reason I commented on it in the first place. It
appears that only the version of Mozzila that you are using was able to
render it correctly.

>   It was not my intention to start such a flamewar. It's just that when
> someone despises something that is important to me and that I have made
> with effort, I often lose my temper.

Have a nice cold beer (or other beverage of your choice) and let the flame
burn out.

-- 
Ken Tyler

Post a reply to this message

Ken wrote:
> 
> 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.

Five years ago, I would have agreed with you.

-Xplo

Post a reply to this message

In article <3d740d29@news.povray.org> , Xplo Eristotle <xpl### [at] infomagicnet>
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.

I do not care what you think or claim, but if you call me a troll, maybe you
should review your history of posts.  If that is within your ability to see
your pointless insults, that is.

I am free to choose to argue with whom I want, and I simply do not argue
with you any more because you constantly side-track the discussion, start
cheap personal attacks and the like.  So I ignore your arguments, if you
construct something out of it that is not the thruth i have other means to
stop you, remember that!

As you notice I am continuing the discussion with everybody else who is able
to keep the discussion out of the personal area.

    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 <3d740ed7@news.povray.org> , Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg>  wrote:

>> Why?  Because this kind of layout hurts readability more than it helps!
>
>   Did you read my text about using and misusing? You are exaggerating, as
> people always do in this kind of flamewars: When I say that you could use
> a color to distinguish keywords from the rest of the text, you immediately
> jump with exaggerations about "20+ colors". That tactic is old and cheap,
> and convinces no-one.

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.

So, as you can see, even your fairly simple page has many colors.

>   Absolutely yes. Mathematical formulae have a clear layout in order to
> be easy to read and understand and to clearly differentiate them from the
> rest of the text. The layout of mathematical formulae is very fancy
> (because you can't get it with eg. a typewriter).
>   When you are looking for a certain formula in they papers, it's easy
> because of the layout.

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.  One could write
formulas by simply putting them in a long chains of words and numbers and
operators, but that would help nobody.  It would be much harder to find out
rules of precedence and such.  Yet it would still be possible.

>   But they did. Imagine that the formulae in Einstein's paper would have
> been written in ascii in C style...

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 am completely read to make a test:
>   I can make two versions of the Q&T pages, one as it's currently and
> another with no CSS and all of your "layout" tags removed (ie. <i>, <b> etc).
> Then we can make a poll about which version do people prefer.

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.

>   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.  You asked about the
tags before and I gave you the reference in the HTML 4.0 specification that
explained their difference:

Date: Tue, 03 Sep 2002 02:01:25 +0200
From: "Thorsten Froehlich" <tho### [at] trfde>
Newsgroups: povray.general
Subject: Re: povQ&T (aka. povVFAQ) new look
Message-ID: <3d73fbd6@news.povray.org>
Xref: news.povray.org povray.general:41833

>   (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.

    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 <3d7414d6@news.povray.org> , Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg>  wrote:

>> It could mean anything.
>
>   No, it couldn't. It means "header level 1", or "top level header" (ie.
> it's not under any other higher-priority header).
>   It does not mean "paragraph", nor "footnote", nor "quote". It means "header"
> and nothing else.

You quoted me out of context (again).  Usually paragraphs outline an idea,
not sentences:  "It could mean anything.  When you print a HTML page on
paper, a new page could for example start with every h1 tag."

It is very clear what i mean with "anything" is layout.  I did not say
structure.  That would not make sense as my second sentence made very clear.
So please do not rip sentences of mine out of context and then attack what I
said.

>>  When you print a HTML page on paper, a new page
>> could for example start with every h1 tag.
>
>   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!  The structure tag h1 can be rendered in
many different layouts.  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.

>   And what is so bad if the author would want you to see the header
> as "Helvetica bold 20 pixel height"? If the author thinks that that makes
> his work look better and nicer, then why not?

Well, it might be one of any of these, in no particular order (!!!):

- The user does not have the font Helvetica
- 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

>> Well, why do you want to disallow users to configure their display such that
>> <h1> is rendered in a three pixel size font?
>
>   I don't think CSS disallows users from doing that (at least not any more
> than plain HTML does).
>   You are still speaking about forcing, while that's not the issue at all.
> You can't force anything with CSS. The issue here is helping.

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.  Things like assuming a specific minimum width:

Take your page for example here.  What is its minimum width?  It is given by
the table that contains the navigation (thus misusing a table for layout).
You assume everybody will have a screen at least big enough that there will
be enough space next to the navigation bar to display the content.  But what
happens if you i.e. view the page one a handheld computer with a small
screen?  The layout you gave failed, and certain elements of it like the
navigation bar cannot be correctled by the user without loosing the ability
to navigate on the page.  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.

As you see in the example I gave, you made an assumption.  You always have
to make an assumption when you specify layout.  But why should you make an
assumption if the user reading it _knows_ the layout he/she needs?  in this
simple example this might just be the browser on the handheld device having
a default samller font size for headers and text, less space between
paragraphs and such.  But if you specify the layout and design assuming your
page will be displayed this way, and only this way, the layout you provide
breaks!


    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 <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

On Tue, 03 Sep 2002 00:23:01 +0200, Thorsten Froehlich wrote:
> 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

Actually, <I> is entirely presentation.  However, people who advocate not
confusing markup with presentation also tend to advocate not using tags
like <I> and <B> and <TT> (why is it that we never see anyone using <TT>,
preferring <CODE> and <PRE>, but only very few people use <EM> or <STRONG>?)

-- 
#local R=rgb 99;#local P=R-R;#local F=pigment{gradient x}box{0,1pigment{gradient
y pigment_map{[.5F pigment_map{[.3R][.3F color_map{[.15red 99][.15P]}rotate z*45
translate x]}]#local H=pigment{gradient y color_map{[.5P][.5R]}scale 1/3}[.5F
pigment_map{[.3R][.3H][.7H][.7R]}]}}}camera{location.5-3*z}//only my opinions

Post a reply to this message

On 3 Sep 2002 11:13:11 -0400, Warp wrote:
> 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.

I think it's "Stupid CSS Tricks" (by analogy with Letterman's classic "Stupid
Human Tricks" and "Stupid Pet Tricks" segments; no judgment intended) that he
doesn't like.  Parts of CSS are wonderful, but parts of it are just plain 
broken.  Letting me choose how I want <EM> to appear?  Wonderful.  Letting
the "designer" litter my screen with scare quotes and sidebars?  No.  HTML is
not a page description language.  Use PostScript or PDF if that's what you
want.  In my (never) humble opinion, the decline of the web coincided with
the replacement of the word "author" with the word "designer" on webmonkeys'
resumes.

And on another point: who's browsing the web with a 486 these days?  Maybe
only a few poverty-level communities in central Africa, and who cares about
them anyway, right?  But wait, what about the 20 MHz Motorola 68EZ328 in my
Palm Vx?  And the 160x160 pixel display?  What went wrong with the vision of
HTML that made it possible for a program like AvantGo to succeed?  Why 
shouldn't I be able to view ANY webpage with my Palm, rather than just the
ones that have been "designed" for it?

-- 
plane{-z,-3normal{crackle scale.2#local a=5;#while(a)warp{repeat x flip x}rotate
z*60#local a=a-1;#end translate-9*x}pigment{rgb 1}}light_source{-9red 1rotate 60
*z}light_source{-9rgb y rotate-z*60}light_source{9-z*18rgb z}text{ttf"arial.ttf"
"RP".01,0translate-<.6,.4,.02>pigment{bozo}}light_source{-z*3rgb-.2}//Ron Parker

Post a reply to this message

In article <slr### [at] fwicom> , Ron Parker 
<ron### [at] povrayorg>  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
>
> Actually, <I> is entirely presentation.  However, people who advocate not
> confusing markup with presentation also tend to advocate not using tags
> like <I> and <B> and <TT> (why is it that we never see anyone using <TT>,
> preferring <CODE> and <PRE>, but only very few people use <EM> or <STRONG>?)

Indeed, the <i> does not fit here.  I referred to the other post which did
correctly list the separate tags for presentation and structure.  Looks liek
I overlooked the <i> tag in Warps list :-(

    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 <3d74d12b@news.povray.org> , "Pandora" 
<pan### [at] pandora-softwarecom> wrote:

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

No, people are turning my words around and I am constantly correcting the
other misinterpretations.  But indeed, on the basis that nobody actually
seems to read what I write but just replies with the same preconceptions
ignoring what i keep saying, it is pointless to argue.

    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 <3d74d186@news.povray.org> , Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg>  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.

No, you can specify where things appear and in what size and the depend on
them being where they are.  Like your flying menu did.

    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 Tue, 3 Sep 2002 01:56:09 +0100, Pandora wrote:
> "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.

Perhaps there's a language barrier here that nobody has yet perceived.
What Thorsten means when he says "structure" is that part of the document's
structure which is inherent in the content: where the paragraph breaks are,
where the section breaks are, and so on.  Moving those things arbitrarily
can significantly change the tone of the document.  "Layout," on the other
hand, is presentation: what the font will be, how emphasized text will be 
marked, how many columns the page will have, whether to use illuminated caps 
as the first letter of the first paragraph of a section, and so on.  

The way I see the distinction is this: if a change in the page affects
the way you read the text aloud, it's content.  If it doesn't affect
the way you read the text aloud, it's presentation.  This is just a rule
of thumb, though, so people creating exceptions for the sake of argument
will be mocked and ignored.

Sidebars and scare quotes are a separate thing; they're really separate
documents in their own right, and should be handled with meta-markup
such as, like it or not, frames (but not iframes; when Microsoft created
iframes, they at least partially missed the point of frames.)

User Interface elements like navigation bars should never be part of a 
document, unless the entire purpose of that document is to provide 
navigation.  Yes, that probably means you should use frames.  Even Lynx
supports frames now.  Other UI elements like the omnipresent "back to 
top" links that lazy and/or incompetent "designers" put on pages that 
present too much unrelated information should also be avoided.

-- 
#macro R(P)z+_(P)_(P)_(P+1)_(P+1)+z#end#macro Q(C,T)bicubic_patch{type 1u_steps
6v_steps 6R(1)R(3)R(5)R(7)pigment{rgb z}}#end#macro _(Y)#local X=asc(substr(C,Y
,1))-65;<T+mod(X,4)div(X,4)9>-2#end#macro O(T)Q("ABEFUQWS",T)Q("WSXTLOJN",T)#
end O(0)O(3)Q("JNKLCGCD",0)light_source{x 1}// ron### [at] povrayorg

Post a reply to this message

In article <3d74c589@news.povray.org> , "Tom Melly" <tom### [at] tomandlucouk> 
wrote:

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

That you think it is irrational means you at least got my point.  Which is
good.

    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 <3d74b4da@news.povray.org> , Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg>  wrote:

>> You quoted me out of context (again).
>
>   No, I didn't. Saying that is another of your cheap tactics.

Ha! You provide two great examples of doing this here.

Number one:

>> - 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?

I was talking about text, the h1 tag in fact.  You then starts talking about
images making it look like I talked about images.

Number two:

>> 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 on a 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?

Well, why do you startspicking on individual sentences?  You rip the
"because of the way HTML is meant to be" out of the context of the
immediately following "(not depend on a specific layout)".  With this little
not in parenthesis it makes sense if you would just bother to read it.

But you did not read any of my arguments, you did not look up any of the
examples I have about layout (or as said before call them presentation if
you like) tags in the HTML 4.0 specification versus text structure tags in
the very same specification.

If you find the same distinction in the specification of HTML and we are
talking about HTML, why do you keep attacking the definition this is all
about?

The only conclusions from the above are that you either do not understand
the definitions in the HTMl sepcification or you do not want to understand
them for the sake of argument.

In either case, whatever I say cannot convince you if we do not share the
same vocabulary and definition.  So if you are unable or refuse to
understand, not what i wrote, but what is written in the HTML 4.0
specification, then I cannot continue arguing with you because i simply
cannot take you seriously on the basis I presented above.

    Thorsten


PS:

>   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.

Yes, the reader can.  If you just stick to the structure you find in books
as well.  You have a table of contents and you have sections and subsections
with headers.  More you do not need.


____________________________________________________
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

Ron Parker wrote:
> Why 
> shouldn't I be able to view ANY webpage with my Palm, rather than just the
> ones that have been "designed" for it?

Same reason you can't view them on your watch: because that device's 
software or display capabilities aren't sufficient to display web pages.

Of course, a Palm is far more capable than a watch, and should be able 
to display some web pages, but the principle remains. Even if we ignore 
PC-biased web design, some pages will have *content* that depends on 
scripting, high-resolution graphics, or the like, and therefore couldn't 
work on any "merely" HTML-compatible devices anyway. Therefore, 
regardless of your philosophy on web design, you must accept that you 
will never be able to see everything on such a device.

-Xplo

Post a reply to this message

Ron Parker <ron### [at] povrayorg> wrote:
> In my (never) humble opinion, the decline of the web coincided with
> the replacement of the word "author" with the word "designer" on webmonkeys'
> resumes.

  No offence intended, but I don't see any "decline of the web". Webpages
are nowadays a lot nicer in the average than they were 5 years ago (just
look at povray.org! The difference compared to the previous is enormous,
and for good).

  For some reason purists think that making webpages bigger and cluttering
them with flashy effects is a very bad thing. I don't see why.
  Granted, those effects can be abused. But everything can be abused. Even
plain HTML, with no extras, can be abused (eg. put *everything* inside
a single <h1>...</h1> block). That's no reason enough to say that they are
bad. If well used, they can greatly enhance the look and usability of a
website.
  I certainly like a lot more a website which has a nice layout and where
things are clear and easy to find instead of a website with no layout at
all. So what if it might break the limits between structure and layout?
Who cares? Only purists do.

-- 
#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:
> I was talking about text, the h1 tag in fact.  You then starts talking about
> images making it look like I talked about images.

  *sigh*

  I'm bored.

-- 
#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

On 3 Sep 2002 13:43:56 -0400, Warp wrote:
> all. So what if it might break the limits between structure and layout?
> Who cares? Only purists do.

Only people who wanted to have some use for the content absent the layout
do.  If that makes me a purist, so be it.  There's nothing inherent in 
text that should make it impossible to skip all the pretty formatting.

Here's my position on the matter: if your page is impossible to read in 
Lynx or Emacs w3, and the content isn't primarily audio or graphical in
nature, chances are you aren't trying hard enough.  The standards have
been written with the ability to fall back in mind; the difference between
a good web designer and just another webmonkey is the ability to take 
advantage of that.

-- 
#macro R(L P)sphere{L F}cylinder{L P F}#end#macro P(V)merge{R(z+a z)R(-z a-z)R(a
-z-z-z a+z)torus{1F clipped_by{plane{a 0}}}translate V}#end#macro Z(a F T)merge{
P(z+a)P(z-a)R(-z-z-x a)pigment{rgbt 1}hollow interior{media{emission T}}finish{
reflection.1}}#end Z(-x-x.2y)Z(-x-x.4x)camera{location z*-10rotate x*90}

Post a reply to this message

ABX wrote:
> 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

It's been an amazing thread and has gotten totally out of control and 
off-topic.
I rarely post unless I feel I can help someone (usually in the Linux 
dept) or
if I can help shed some light on the conversation. I'm a POV-Ray newbie so I
feel I'm not qualified to help people with POV related questions yet, 
but I'm
working on it ;)

When I did make a post in an attempt to clarify a point, the reply I 
received
was insulting. That made me depressed about the POV newsgroups and the
community atmosphere (or lack of) resulting in this thread. I kind of feel
bad for Warp who spent a bunch of his time fixing up the VFAQ, asking for
opinions on the changes, then getting flamed to death :(  For the record
Warp, the changes look good!

Hopefully, people can stop arguing about semantics, let this thread die and
get back to POVing!

-Roz

Post a reply to this message

Ron Parker <ron### [at] povrayorg> wrote:
> Here's my position on the matter: if your page is impossible to read in 
> Lynx or Emacs w3, and the content isn't primarily audio or graphical in
> nature, chances are you aren't trying hard enough.

  (By the way, I just checked and the Q&T pages look pretty good with lynx
and w3m.)

-- 
#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

Xplo Eristotle <xpl### [at] infomagicnet> wrote:
> It's just that every once in a while 
> Thorsten decides to be an arrogant asshole about something he claims to 
> understand, but doesn't.

  Could we stop these personal attacks and go back to civilized conversation?
Even if we have differing views about things, that doesn't mean we should be
rude and insulting.

-- 
#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

On Tue, 03 Sep 2002 12:24:51 -0700, Xplo Eristotle
<xpl### [at] infomagicnet> wrote:

>In defense of these groups, the majority of threads are more friendly 
>(not to mention more on topic).

>It's just that every once in a while 
>Thorsten decides to be an arrogant asshole about something he claims to 
>understand, but doesn't.

Now, aren't these two statements contradictory!

What we see here is a conflict between two quite self-confident,
elitarian egos. Might I add, both have very solid grounds of being
self-confident and elitarian :) I don't see any assholes around.

You will see either one jumping in from the same heights when
defending other subjects they have their opinions on. It's just that
in this very case, they chose the same subject :)

Seriously, there is no sense of personal insults. Someone even tried
to drag Bill into this argument and he's been staying out much more
wisely than most of the participants.

>I suppose it might be better policy to just ignore people like him, but 
>there are times when something must be said (and then beaten to death), 
>are there not?

Yes there are such times (as my post proves) but no, you got the rest
wrong. Why not ignore the subject and not the person? Or do you really
think any of the participants in the thread are really assholes?

>That, and of course the fact that he maintains the Mac version of 
>POV-Ray (in strict accordance with Apple human interface research 
>findings that exist entirely in his own mind and contradict public 
>documents, I might add), makes him harder to ignore completely...

The POV-Ray Team and its members have a clean history of taking user
feedback seriously. If enough people find a bug or demand a feature,
that bug is removed or the feature is usually added, of course within
the natural imposed limits of hardware, software, algorithm, current
implementation etc.

Please, take a more civilized approach to the subject. That's to
everyone.


Peter Popov ICQ : 15002700
Personal e-mail : pet### [at] vipbg
TAG      e-mail : pet### [at] tagpovrayorg

Post a reply to this message

"Thorsten Froehlich" <tho### [at] trfde> wrote in message
news:3d74e634@news.povray.org...
> In article <3d74d186@news.povray.org> , Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg>  wrote:
>
>
> No, you can specify where things appear and in what size and the depend on
> them being where they are.  Like your flying menu did.
>

Well, you can - any technology can be used badly - but used well, CSS enhances a
webpage.

For example (I hope) - take a look at my site (http://www.tomandlu.co.uk). I use
CSS throughout, but (hopefully) the pages are fully-functional without it.

Post a reply to this message

In article <3d75d4e1@news.povray.org> , "Tom Melly" <tom### [at] tomandlucouk> 
wrote:

> Well, you can - any technology can be used badly - but used well, CSS enhances
> a webpage.

That is of course true.

> For example (I hope) - take a look at my site (http://www.tomandlu.co.uk). I
> use CSS throughout, but (hopefully) the pages are fully-functional without it.

Yes, just like povray.org is.

    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

Peter Popov <pet### [at] vipbg> wrote:
> Why not ignore the subject and not the person?

  This is an extremely wise suggestion.
  Sometimes when someone fights with someone else about a subject, he starts
disliking the person in everything he does, in a quite revengeful way. That
is, no matter what the other person does, he will be against him just by
principle, having some kind of fool revenge ideology.
  I personally try to avoid this as much as possible. Even when I have a
strong fight with someone, that doesn't affect my attitude towards this
person in other matters in any way. I usually don't remember "ah, this is
the person who I had a fight with" later in other discussions.

-- 
#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

"Warp" <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote in message
news:3d7618f5@news.povray.org...
> Peter Popov <pet### [at] vipbg> wrote:
> > Why not ignore the subject and not the person?
>
>   This is an extremely wise suggestion.
>   Sometimes when someone fights with someone else about a subject, he
starts
> disliking the person in everything he does, in a quite revengeful way.
>


    Tell me about it... :(

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

Post a reply to this message