In article <3d712290@news.povray.org> , Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg>  wrote:

>  I don't really want to degrade the pages because of an old and obsolete
> browser.

Well, that is the wrong attitude.  Remember there are a billion pages to
visit on the web.  If your page is crap people will just turn to one of the
999999999 other pages.  So if you are at all interested at people looking at
your page, you better get it to work correctly for everyone!

One solution is to stay away from crap like CSS2 and other nonsense.
Remember that the point of the web is not forcing people to upgrade to
whatever browser you like but to make ***content*** available.  If you fail
to present the content in a readable manner people will just ignore it.
There is more to see than just your one page, and there will always be an
alternate source they can use.  Soon thereafter your page will be
irrelevant!

Or as someone who knows well said "Forget the Web's Realities? You Die" [1].


    Thorsten


[1] <http://www.useit.com/alertbox/20010819.html>

____________________________________________________
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 <3d7130fc@news.povray.org> , Xplo Eristotle <xpl### [at] infomagicnet>
wrote:

> If the site is written correctly, then it is your browser that is
> broken, not the site.

This is the biggest bullshit I have read in a long time!

There is no standard for HTML that requires it to render like crap.  Nor is
CSS required anywhere.  If you like to follow "recommendations" by a
industry interest group like the W3C, you lost sense of reality.  See for
yourself:  <http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Member/List>

So it is really that far now that people start telling me I have to follow
what a bunch of self appointed companies say I should?  Oh great.  When they
tell you whom to vote for in the next election, will you also follow them?

On the other hand, if you follow the ISO HTML standard (ISO/IEC 15445)
rather than the W3C crap you get pages that work everywhere.  Not really
surprising as the ISO committees are usually experts rather than companies
who only represent self-interests...


    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 <3d7169a5@news.povray.org> , Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg>  wrote:

>   Secondly, how my site is "broken"? It's 100% valid standard HTML 4 and
> it works ok with a modern browser.

Does it really conform to ISO HTML?  The W3C does not set standards, they
give (bad) "recommendations".  There is a big difference between standards
and 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

In article <3d7169a5@news.povray.org> , Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg>  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?

    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 <3d71c1cd@news.povray.org> , Xplo Eristotle <xpl### [at] infomagicnet>
wrote:

> For gods' sakes, Ken, stop acting like a fucking baby and upgrade
> already. Or don't.

No, you are wrong and Ken is right.  You are producing nonsense and then
complain if Ken tells you.  Well ... keep in mind there are people who
actually *work* with their computer using it as *tool* rather than as a
*toy* spending countless hours hunting for the latest updates.  If that is
your only hobby, maybe you should seek counseling...

    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:
> So it is really that far now that people start telling me I have to follow
> what a bunch of self appointed companies say I should?  Oh great.  When they
> tell you whom to vote for in the next election, will you also follow them?

  Your attitude is really strange (specially considering that even the
POV-Ray HTML help uses CSS and needs at least a certain version of IE).

  The recommendations and standards set by the W3C are things that browsers
are supporting or will be supporting in the near future if they want to
keep up with the progress.

  You talk like the situation was a lot better years ago, when every browser
had their own non-standard extensions and other browsers tried to copy those
extensions in order to keep up.
  Now there's one standard to follow, and you say that's a bad thing? Sorry,
but I don't agree with you.

  This "CSS sucks" attitude really amazes me. Come on people. Wake up.
Whining that old browsers don't support CSS is exactly as stupid as whining
that new games don't work with older versions of DirectX: So what? Upgrade
your DirectX. Simple.

-- 
#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 <tyl### [at] pacbellnet> wrote:
> If you want your site completely usable by only 5-10% of all the
> worlds computer users

  I would really like to know where did you get those numbers. You don't
seriously claim that only 5-10% of computer users in the world are using
Internet Explorer or Netscape 6 or Mozilla?
  This would mean that, according to you, 90% of people are using Netscape 4.

-- 
#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

In article <3d720276@news.povray.org> , Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg>  wrote:

>   Your attitude is really strange (specially considering that even the
> POV-Ray HTML help uses CSS and needs at least a certain version of IE).

It does not.  Never did.  It works completely without it.  Besides, when did
_I_ create Windows HTML help?  Microsoft created it and set the
requirements, not me!

    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:
> No, you are wrong and Ken is right.  You are producing nonsense and then
> complain if Ken tells you.  Well ... keep in mind there are people who
> actually *work* with their computer using it as *tool* rather than as a
> *toy* spending countless hours hunting for the latest updates.  If that is
> your only hobby, maybe you should seek counseling...

  What you are saying there is just nonsense.
  Installing the newest Netscape takes probably about 10 minutes, and that's
it. It's not like you have to do it every day.

-- 
#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 <3d720276@news.povray.org> , Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg>  wrote:

>   This "CSS sucks" attitude really amazes me. Come on people. Wake up.

The web is about ***content***, not layout.  Don't you get it?

You want to present your content, but you focus on unreadable layout and
supposedly neat features nobody needs that just cause problems (and I warned
you before that they would).  That is the problem I am having with your
attitude.  Not more, not less.

    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:
> they give (bad) "recommendations".

  That's really something I don't understand from you.

  If you consider W3C recommendations bad, then please immediately remove
CSS support from the POV-Ray HTML help and from the povray.org website.
If you don't then stop being so double-faced.
  IMHO it's hypocrisy to defame something and judge people for thinking that
people should upgrade their programs, but at the same time use those things
you defame and require people to upgrade to programs which support them.

  So you consider CSS bad. That probably means that you consider the old
method better, where you write all the definitions separately to each tag
(and if you want to change something, you change it everywhere separately).
  The reason why you think this way goes beyond me.

-- 
#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 <3d720450@news.povray.org> , Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg>  wrote:

>   Installing the newest Netscape takes probably about 10 minutes, and that's
> it. It's not like you have to do it every day.

And two hours to download, don't forget that.  Somepople do not have a 10
Mbit university Ethernet connection.  Or DSL...

And besides, to install a new software every day (it does not stop at web
browsers), that is a lost work time of serveral percent.  Time is money.

____________________________________________________
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:
> 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?

  Do game houses make versions which work with DirectX 1? Or even 7? No. Why?
  Do programmers make programs which work with Windows 3.1? No. Why?
  Do the pov-team make the html-help of POV-Ray to work with IE 1? No. Why?

  Stop that bullshit already.
  You know what is the difference between your example and the issue in
question, but your pride does not allow you to publicly admit it.

-- 
#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 <3d7206fa@news.povray.org> , Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg>  wrote:

>   If you consider W3C recommendations bad, then please immediately remove
> CSS support from the POV-Ray HTML help and from the povray.org website.
> If you don't then stop being so double-faced.

You are wrong here.  Completely wrong.  And you are missing something very
important.  I did not design povray.org.  I implemented most of the HTML
based on a POV-Team approved design and layout.  It neither was nor is my
place to change the design and layout that was agreed upon.  Working in a
team means that there will be decisions I do am necessarily absolutely happy
about.  That does not mean I cannot or will not implement them.  But that
does not mean I cannot have my own opinion either.

In any case, this is completely besides the point.  Or do you see flying
menus, popup CSS menus or any such non-working crap on povray.org?  Guess
why you do not see 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

Thorsten Froehlich <tho### [at] trfde> wrote:
> One solution is to stay away from crap like CSS2 and other nonsense.

  Please immediately remove all CSS from the POV-Ray HTML help and povray.org
site, or either stop that bullshit. Thanks.

  Besides, how many % of people are using Netscape 4 and refuse to upgrade?

  And please explain me why CSS is crap and why the old system was better.

-- 
#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:
> The web is about ***content***, not layout.  Don't you get it?

  Have you taken a look at povray.org lately? I see a lot of layout there.
  Please stop being so hypocrite.

> You want to present your content, but you focus on unreadable layout

  So how many % of people are seeing "unreadable layout"? Less than 1%
perhaps? And that's only because they refuse to upgrade their browser,
which is a 10-minutes operation.
  No, I still don't agree with you.

-- 
#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 <3d720827@news.povray.org> , Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg>  wrote:

>   Do game houses make versions which work with DirectX 1? Or even 7? No. Why?

Who work with computers every day for a living?  hardly those who play games
all day...

>   Do programmers make programs which work with Windows 3.1? No. Why?

Because it is not Y2K compliant and thus nobody is using it anymore.

>   Do the pov-team make the html-help of POV-Ray to work with IE 1? No. Why?

I did answer this already, so why do you bring it up again and again?  If
Windows HTML help requires IE 4 by design, well, then it does, but nobody
but Microsfot can do anything about it.

Does the povray.org or Mac HTML help version require CSS?  No, because
Microsoft did not require it and so we have no need to do so either.

>   Stop that bullshit already.
>   You know what is the difference between your example and the issue in
> question, but your pride does not allow you to publicly admit it.

No, yu made completely broken site.  You knew in advande it would cuase
problems.  Now you don't want to admit this.

If you like I can post the screenshots I posted in the TAG group in p.b.i
for everybody to see.  I planned to give you a convinient way out by just
silently fixing it, but no need for me to do so if you don't want me being
nice...

    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 any case, this is completely besides the point.  Or do you see flying
> menus, popup CSS menus or any such non-working crap on povray.org?  Guess
> why you do not see it...

  Ah, now you are changing your attitude. Now only *some* features of CSS
are crap, not everything in it.

  You have still failed to explain why CSS is crap.

-- 
#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

In article <3d7209c5@news.povray.org> , Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg>  wrote:

>   So how many % of people are seeing "unreadable layout"? Less than 1%
> perhaps? And that's only because they refuse to upgrade their browser,
> which is a 10-minutes operation.
>   No, I still don't agree with you.

More than 10% of all POV-Ray 3.5 users who turn to your page.  All Mac users
that would be.  Plus the "rest".  I have not checked on how many other
browsers your site breaks.

And what you apply is unreasonable standards.  Maybe this will explain it
better:

"Note that no distinction is made between patches which are themselves buggy
and patches which expose "latent" bugs elsewhere in the compiler."
<http://gcc.gnu.org/develop.html>

to be read as

"Note that no distinction is made between layout which is itself buggy and
layout which exposes "latent" layout problems elsewhere in the browser."


____________________________________________________
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 <3d7208be@news.povray.org> , Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg>  wrote:

> Thorsten Froehlich <tho### [at] trfde> wrote:
>> One solution is to stay away from crap like CSS2 and other nonsense.
>
>   Please immediately remove all CSS from the <snip> povray.org
> site, or either stop that bullshit. Thanks.

It does not use CSS2, if you would bother to check...

    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 <3d720a8a@news.povray.org> , Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg>  wrote:

>   You have still failed to explain why CSS is crap.

I said CSS2, if you had only read my posts.  Apart from that, you are
quoting me out of context and try to turn my words around.  Read the first
paragraph or else you force me to remove all structure from my posts and use
only single paragraph posts to prevent such quoting style.

    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

> > One solution is to stay away from crap like CSS2 and other nonsense.
> 
>   Please immediately remove all CSS from the POV-Ray HTML help and povray.org
> site, or either stop that bullshit. Thanks.

Last I knew, Ingo was teh documentation coordinator...

And this is now *way* off topic for this group IMO.
 
>   Besides, how many % of people are using Netscape 4 and refuse to upgrade?

I still use it occasionally on my system when Opera won't render a page 
properly.  It's still used almost exclusively on my mother's PC 
downstairs.  My brother again uses it when Opera doesn't render a page 
properly, and uses it on his laptop.

At least four of my friends use it.

Jamie.

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:
> 
> Thorsten Froehlich <tho### [at] trfde> wrote:
> > One solution is to stay away from crap like CSS2 and other nonsense.
> 
>   Please immediately remove all CSS from the POV-Ray HTML help and povray.org
> site, or either stop that bullshit. Thanks.

Nice discussion, but don't you think this would be much more adequate in
.off-topic?

>   Besides, how many % of people are using Netscape 4 and refuse to upgrade?

I'm still using Netscape 4 regularly and i know a lot of reasons why one
should use it.  More than 10% of my website visitors use Netscape 3 or 4
BTW.

Christoph

-- 
POV-Ray tutorials, IsoWood include,                 
TransSkin and more: http://www.tu-bs.de/~y0013390/  
Last updated 13 Aug. 2002 _____./\/^>_*_<^\/\.______

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:

>   Besides, how many % of people are using Netscape 4 and refuse to upgrade?

Refuse to do so?

I haven't upgraded simply because I have yet to find a compelling reason to do so.
I have spent literally thousands of hours using this program in its present form
and I am very comfortable with it. I have the views all set the way I like them, my
preferences are set where I need them, my email and newsgroup filters are all in
place, my news groups are properly identified and view as I like them to and most
importantly my bookmarks file is layed out, structured and functioning perfectly.
Every time I have upgraded a browser in the past they have made changes or additions
that annoyed the hell out of me. Can you assure me that absolutely nothing that
I am comfortable with now will change if I upgrade, especially with regards to the
bookmarks feature in Netscape and the way messages are viewed in the mail and news
clients? Do you know both versions so well you can make that recommendation with
100% confidence that I will be 100% satisified with the outcome? I don't think so!

-- 
Ken Tyler

Post a reply to this message

In article <3D7214A1.83859343@gmx.de> , Christoph Hormann 
<chr### [at] gmxde>  wrote:

> Nice discussion, but don't you think this would be much more adequate in
> .off-topic?

I don't read p.off-topic.... ;-)

But otherwise you are more or less right.  On the other hand it is about the
readability of an important POV-Ray resources................


____________________________________________________
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 <3D7219E3.5B7F344A@pacbell.net> , Ken <tyl### [at] pacbellnet>  
wrote:

> I haven't upgraded simply because I have yet to find a compelling reason to do
> so. I have spent literally thousands of hours using this program in its
> present form and I am very comfortable with it. I have the views all set the
> way I like them, my preferences are set where I need them, my email and
> newsgroup filters are all in place, my news groups are properly identified and
> view as I like them to and most importantly my bookmarks file is layed out,
> structured and functioning perfectly. Every time I have upgraded a browser in
> the past they have made changes or additions that annoyed the hell out of me.
> Can you assure me that absolutely nothing that I am comfortable with now will
> change if I upgrade, especially with regards to the bookmarks feature in
> Netscape and the way messages are viewed in the mail and news clients? Do you
> know both versions so well you can make that recommendation with 100%
> confidence that I will be 100% satisified with the outcome? I don't think so!

Most important, I yet i have to figure out where IE stores its bookmark file
on Windows.  Not sure about Mozilla either.

And the scripts that build the links collection (btw, it should have been
updated on povray.org by now) depend on the Netscape 4.x bookmark file to
extract all in information.  They would fail should the format change...

    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:

> And the scripts that build the links collection (btw, it should have been
> updated on povray.org by now) depend on the Netscape 4.x bookmark file to
> extract all in information.  They would fail should the format change...

One of my major fears had been that it would break the povray.org links page
update facility. Thanks for getting the update finished. I was exploring the
changes just before reading this last message. I only noted a couple of typos
on my part, which means there are probably a dozen more or so that I missed
<sigh!>.

-- 
Ken Tyler

Post a reply to this message

"Thorsten Froehlich" <tho### [at] trfde> wrote in message
news:3d721dc2$1@news.povray.org...
> Most important, I yet i have to figure out where IE stores its bookmark
file
> on Windows.  Not sure about Mozilla either.
>


    They're in your Favourites folder - they're just stored as shortcuts,
rather than a list of URLs in a file - if you want to export them to a file
go to File->Import/Export (for I.E 6 at least, previous version may be
different (though, not in terms of the Favourites folder))...

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

Post a reply to this message

Thorsten Froehlich wrote:
> In article <3d7209c5@news.povray.org> , Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg>  wrote:
> 
> 
>>  So how many % of people are seeing "unreadable layout"? 
> 
> 
> More than 10% of all POV-Ray 3.5 users who turn to your page.  All Mac users
> that would be.

I'm on a Mac, and Mozilla loads his site just fine.

-Xplo

Post a reply to this message

"Pandora" <pan### [at] pandora-softwarecom> wrote in message
news:3d72948e$1@news.povray.org...
> "Thorsten Froehlich" <tho### [at] trfde> wrote in message
> news:3d721dc2$1@news.povray.org...
> > Most important, I yet i have to figure out where IE stores its bookmark
> file on Windows.
>
>     They're in your Favourites folder - they're just stored as shortcuts,
> rather than a list of URLs in a file - if you want to export them to a
file
> go to File->Import/Export (for I.E 6 at least, previous version may be
> different (though, not in terms of the Favourites folder))...

For XP it's in Documents and Settings\username, used to be under Windows
folder if 98/ME. Just checked about it and W2K or NT is a bit different
being within a profiles folder. If you have user profiles then same for
98/ME. Aside from a typographical error, tells so here:
http://www.9three.com/tutorials/Jan-23-2002-fetch_your_favorites.htm

Post a reply to this message

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

In article <3d73ab1d@news.povray.org> , Xplo Eristotle <xpl### [at] infomagicnet>
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.

but this was not a problem with HTML!  It was a problem with badly design
web sites by designers nopt understanding the concept of HTML and the web
media (not their fault, all they had ever seen was DTP programs).  So they
abused HTMl and then W3C came up with a technical cure for a desease by
killing the patient (being layout less content description).  Note that
tables do represent layout, but content if used what they are supposed to be
for (like in a spreadsheet)...

> (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

Of course HTML "never provided" it.  One just could control the layout like
fonts and font sizes more easily by nice buttons and menus rather than a
stupid text file.  Back to the future this is supposed to be, I assume...

> 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.

Using cheap personal attacks will not exactly help your point :-(

> 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)..

Nonsense!  The page gets bloated like hell if you use CSS or any layout for
that matter!  I am suggesting to _remove_ it, not _replace_ it with
something I claim to be better!

> 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..

But that is my point!  If I want pages that look like printed, I get a
printed leaflet, not some web page!  Right now HTML and inparticular CSS
allow things that never were HTML in the first place.  Just expand the
acronym "HTML" to see my point!  In order to use CSS "properly" I have to
clutter up what once was HTML with endless references to styles.  What a
great separtation of layout and content that is!  It is a feature added like
a hack, like so many other HTML additions the W3C companies made!

> and since people wanted to do them, that is a solution.

Who wanted them?  The designers or the users?  Designers who were great a
print media design were suddenly supposed to be web designers but inseatd of
using the new medium invatively they demanded the features they always had
when designing for print media: Full control.  So this argument support my
point, not yours.  Sorry!

> 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.

You are still missing the point because you did not read what I wrote!  To
repeat myself:  I am saying that layout should not be specified at all!

> 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.

Design tricks to get web pages look like printed pages, an idea by designers
incapable to understanding that a web browser is not meant for WYSIWYG DTP,
and never was.

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

You did not even undstand what I said, so your conclusion just misses the
point.

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

> 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.

This reply is supposed to be a joke, right???  Otherwise you obviously know
nothing about HTML :-(

    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:
> 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.

  I don't have that option turned on, and it starts in about 5 seconds.
I can live with that.

> 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!

  I just checked and Mozilla, with several pages loaded in browsing tabs,
uses 20 MB of memory. I have 256 Megs. I can live with that.

  By the way, how many people use a 486 to browse the web nowadays?
Mozilla might need something like a P-II 400MHz in order to run smoothly.
Well, I have a 1.2GHz Athlon. I can live with that.

> They allow designers to destroy web pages with tons of bandwidth wasting
> clutter.

  I'm sorry, but I don't see how the clutter "destroys" the page.
Pehaps you need to download a couple of kilobytes more than without the CSS,
but so what? I can live with that.

> So it is very possible to design a
> page that looks good without stylesheets

  Of course it is possible. You can clutter your pages with <font> tags and
other similar things, which make the pages larger (ie. slower to load) and
a lot more difficult to update (if you want to change some font property,
you have to do it in a million of places).
  I can't believe that you can't see the main reason for the existence
of CSS: To modularize the definition of a group of webpages. That is, define
common things in one place only, and avoid copy-pasting. As a coder you
should know very well how important modularity is.
  From what I see you are claiming that using explicit formatting tags for
everything is better than defining one modular CSS definition which is used
then everywhere.

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

  CSS doesn't make pages load slower. If anything, they make it load faster
because there's less copy-paste.
  Things that make a page load slower are quite independent of CSS.

  You have still failed to give any *reasonable* argument about why CSS is
bad. I'm not talking about who created it and why, or who is using it and
how and making what assumptions. I'm talking about the CSS format itself,
as a format, a definition, a standard.

-- 
#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 <3d73cb4a@news.povray.org> , Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg>  wrote:

>   Of course it is possible. You can clutter your pages with <font> tags and
> other similar things, which make the pages larger (ie. slower to load) and
> a lot more difficult to update (if you want to change some font property,
> you have to do it in a million of places).

You still miss my point:  ***No*** layout in the page!  No stupid font tags!

Apart from that, usually you exchange font tags by div tags or other ways to
specify styles in a CSS.  So it is not exactly like the data transmitted is
only the CSS.

    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 apologize for my rude language, but the claim that text is better read
with no layout is just plain bullshit.

  There are lots of pages out there, where there are literally hundreds
of kilobytes of plain text in one enormous page. If I'm searching information
about something, those pages usually don't help too much. It simply takes
too much time and it's simply too tedious to try to find the information
I want among the thousands and thousands of lines of text.
  It has happened to me more than once that eg. searching something in
Google ends up in this kind of page. After I try to find something useful
for a couple of minutes I just give up and try the next Google hit; there
are usually a lot better layouted sites with the same information and it's
a lot easier to find there.

  A clear hierarchy, with sections, subsections etc. is the main way of
starting making a big page more clear. A large hierarchy needs a contents
or index page, or a site map in order to be easy to navigate. If there is
a lot of content, it should be divided into several logical pages. If a
page consists of several separated parts, eg. sections, there should be
a way to very easily see where does a new part start (a section name with
larger font is the main tool for this, but other additional features, such
as colors can make it even more clear).
  Hierarchy, sections, subsections, index, site map, visually marking
starting of different parts... All that is layout.

  You claim that the layout should be left to the browser, not the site.
However, the browser simply can't do most of those things because it has
no notion of the content. The site has to tell the browser information in
order to separate different items of the page.

-- 
#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 <3d73cb4a@news.povray.org> , Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg>  wrote:

>   You have still failed to give any *reasonable* argument about why CSS is
> bad. I'm not talking about who created it and why, or who is using it and
> how and making what assumptions. I'm talking about the CSS format itself,
> as a format, a definition, a standard.

The definition of the CSS _format_ itself to specify layout is not bad.  It
would be a great way to specify layout in DTP programs in a portable manner.
Just for HTML is it unsuitable.

    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:
> You still miss my point:  ***No*** layout in the page!  No stupid font tags!

  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.

-- 
#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 <3d73cb4a@news.povray.org> , Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg>  wrote:

>   From what I see you are claiming that using explicit formatting tags for
> everything is better than defining one modular CSS definition which is used
> then everywhere.

Hell, do you really intentionally ignore what I keep saying?  Damn it, how
can one be sooooooo ignorant?!?!?   I said now a few hundred times that I do
not want *************any************** layout.   How can one construct from
the simple idea "no layout" that I keep repeating and repeating that I want
"font tag based layout"?????????????

Either you enter an argument and actually pay attention to the other person
or you don't argue!!!!!!!!!!!!

What I keep saying is:  No font tags, no div tags, no single pixel images in
tables, no layout!

Or don't you know what layout means?  If so, please look it up!


    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:

>>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.
> 
> Using cheap personal attacks will not exactly help your point :-(

It's not a cheap personal attack, it's an observation. You certainly 
SEEM to think that the web should be designed to your specification, and 
that's a naive attitude to have. It's also a rather arrogant one.

What I posted in my reply to Ken was a cheap personal attack. If I were 
to call you a kook - which I'm getting very close to doing - that would 
be a cheap personal attack.

> Nonsense!  The page gets bloated like hell if you use CSS or any layout for
> that matter!

The main CSS file for my site, which is used by the vast majority of the 
pages on it, is about 3200 bytes. It should logically only be downloaded 
by a browser which supports and displays CSS, and then only once as it 
would be cached thereafter. Each HTML file contains no more than a 
couple hundred characters devoted to CSS (for the link tag, classes and 
IDs), and often as few as 50 or so. That's as many as it takes just to 
add a proper DOCTYPE to the top of the file.

I don't feel that this constitutes "bloating like hell".

If you expect anyone to take you seriously, you must make more 
reasonable statements.

> Who wanted them?  The designers or the users?

Both.

The designers wanted specific control over layout and style, and they 
got it. The users wanted pretty pages that load quickly, which the 
designers were better able to give to them with CSS.

> I am saying that layout should not be specified at all!

No you're not.

When you put words on a page, they go in a certain order. That is 
layout. The sentences and paragraphs also go in a certain order. That is 
layout. Lines must break somewhere (or not). That is layout. There must 
be space between paragraphs (or not); that is layout.

If you have a table - even if it's filled with ordinary tabular data - 
it's still layout. If you put an image on a web page, where does it go? 
In the horizontal center of the page? On the side? At the bottom, after 
all the text? Maybe at the top? Should it be rendered inline or block? 
Should text flow around it? If so, how much room should there be between 
the image and the text? This is all layout.

Even the typographic controls that CSS gives designers, which you put 
down as an attempt to make the web work more like print media, exist IN 
TYPOGRAPHY for a reason. There are centuries of development in print 
with regards to fonts, font weight, spacing, leading, column width, and 
so forth.. things which apply to ALL text, everywhere.. things which do 
not fail to apply to text on the web simply because it's on the web.

What you're doing is making an artificial distinction between what kinds 
of layout are okay and which are not. Unfortunately, you're not doing a 
good job of defining the dividing line, let alone justifying its 
existence. I'll say it again: if you want every web page to look the way 
you want, turn off your browser's handling of designer-specified 
styling, or use a browser that supports user stylesheets and create a 
stylesheet that suits you. There's really no reason to throw away 
something that millions of people want just because you can't be 
bothered to turn it off, AND IT'S NOT GOING TO HAPPEN.

-Xplo

Post a reply to this message

Thorsten Froehlich <tho### [at] trfde> wrote:
> I said now a few hundred times that I do 
> not want *************any************** layout.

  Ok, I made a version of one of the pages with absolutely no layout:

http://www.students.tut.fi/~warp/povQandT/languageQandT_nolayout.html

  Now I see what you mean. It's a lot cleaner this way! A lot nicer to read.
  Perhaps I should make all the pages like that.

-- 
#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